Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Strategy and a Controversial Legacy in Afghanistan and the Middle East

Zalmay Khalilzad: Between the Architecture of U.S. Strategy and a Contested Legacy in Afghanistan and the Middle East

Zalmay Khalilzad stands among the most consequential figures in American diplomacy of the past half-century. His prominence derives not only from his Afghan heritage but, more significantly, from his central role in shaping U.S. policy toward Afghanistan and Iraq, and later in steering the Doha negotiations with the Taliban. His career reflects a rare fusion of academic inquiry and the practice of statecraft—one that carried him from the research halls of American think tanks to the nerve centers of global diplomacy. Yet, his legacy remains highly contested, whether in Washington, Kabul, or across the wider Middle East.

Khalilzad’s intellectual and professional formation began at the University of Chicago before he moved into prominent American policy institutes, where he specialized in regional security and U.S. policy toward the Islamic world. He later joined the administration of President George W. Bush, becoming a prominent voice within the neoconservative camp. Following the U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), Khalilzad transitioned from drafting policy papers to implementing them in practice, serving as U.S. Ambassador in both Kabul and Baghdad—appointments that placed him at the epicenter of Washington’s regional strategy.

His most visible role, however, emerged during the Doha negotiations (2018–2020), which culminated in an agreement between Washington and the Taliban. As the principal architect of this accord, Khalilzad became the face of U.S. diplomacy in Afghanistan. The agreement itself divided opinion: to some, it was a pragmatic achievement that enabled the conclusion of America’s longest war; to others, it amounted to a veiled concession that restored legitimacy to the Taliban and weakened U.S. credibility abroad.

Khalilzad’s Afghan origin added both resonance and controversy to his role. For some, it positioned him as a natural interlocutor between Washington and Kabul; for others, it cast lingering doubts on his loyalties, with accusations that he prioritized U.S. strategic objectives over Afghan aspirations. In the United States, neoconservatives regarded him as an indispensable envoy for advancing policy in fragile contexts such as Afghanistan and Iraq. By contrast, Afghan critics often overlooked the fact that Khalilzad operated not as an independent agent but as an executor of U.S. state policy, making personal reproach analytically reductive.

The regional reception of Khalilzad’s diplomacy was similarly complex. In Pakistan, he was viewed as influential yet partial, particularly for his tendency to frame the Taliban question within Washington’s strategic calculus. In Iran, he was perceived as an instrument of U.S. pressure, particularly in shaping Iraq’s post-2003 political order. Russia, meanwhile, monitored his role in Doha with suspicion, wary of the accord’s potential implications for its influence in Central Asia. Such responses reveal that Khalilzad’s impact extended beyond Afghanistan, intersecting with the broader geopolitical contestations of the Middle East and Eurasia.

Within the United States, assessments of Khalilzad were sharply polarized. Many Republicans and neoconservatives credited him with advancing U.S. strategic interests through skillful diplomacy. Conversely, Democrats and independent analysts often criticized his role in brokering an agreement that hastened the Taliban’s return to power. Think tank debates continue over whether his efforts represented a strategic success in ending a costly war, or a short-sighted compromise that exacted long-term costs on regional stability. His career thus illustrates the paradox of the “crisis diplomat”—a practitioner able to navigate acute challenges but whose solutions inevitably invite enduring controversy.

The fall of Kabul in August 2021 reignited debates over Khalilzad’s legacy. For some, he secured a strategic outcome by concluding America’s longest war with relatively limited costs. For others, he facilitated the Taliban’s resurgence and undermined Washington’s global standing. Yet, this very debate highlights both the complexity of the crises he managed and the continued relevance of his career for evaluating U.S. interventions abroad.

Ultimately, Khalilzad’s trajectory reflects the delicate interplay between theory and practice, between U.S. strategic imperatives and Afghan aspirations, and between institutional duty and personal ambition. He was both a strategic thinker who helped chart the direction of American foreign policy and a controversial practitioner whose name became bound to attempts at resolving transnational crises. His legacy underscores both the potential and the limitations of diplomacy conducted at the juncture of global power and local conflict. More importantly, it offers a lens for rethinking how international interests might be reconciled with the aspirations of societies in Afghanistan and the Middle East for stability, peace, and development. His career is thus not merely a record of past controversies but also a potential resource for shaping future approaches that foster trust, deepen dialogue, and generate solutions responsive to the hopes of the region’s peoples.

Although criticism has been voiced by certain fragile and largely inconsequential factions of the Afghan opposition, as well as by other actors, such positions appear fundamentally inaccurate. Khalilzad was not operating as an independent agent; rather, he was fulfilling an executive role that embodied pre-determined U.S. policies. Accordingly, directing criticism at him on a purely personal level remains of limited value if detached from the institutional framework that shaped his decisions and practice.

The original Article is published on the White House in Arabic Platform based in Washington D.C