US Military Calls ISIS in Afghanistan a Threat to the West

American forces from NATO and Afghan commandos at a checkpoint during a patrol ISIS  militants in eastern Afghanistan last year. CreditCreditWakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
American forces from NATO and Afghan commandos at a checkpoint during a patrol ISIS militants in eastern Afghanistan last year. CreditCreditWakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
TT

US Military Calls ISIS in Afghanistan a Threat to the West

American forces from NATO and Afghan commandos at a checkpoint during a patrol ISIS  militants in eastern Afghanistan last year. CreditCreditWakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
American forces from NATO and Afghan commandos at a checkpoint during a patrol ISIS militants in eastern Afghanistan last year. CreditCreditWakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Senior United States military and intelligence officials are sharply divided over how much of a threat ISIS in Afghanistan poses to the West, a critical point in the Trump administration’s debate over whether American troops stay or withdraw after nearly 18 years of war.

American military commanders in Afghanistan have described ISIS affiliate there as a growing problem that is capable of inspiring and directing attacks in Western countries, including the United States.

But intelligence officials in Washington disagree, arguing the group is mostly incapable of exporting terrorism worldwide. The officials believe that ISIS in Afghanistan, known as ISIS Khorasan, remains a regional problem and is more of a threat to the Taliban than to the West.

Differences between the American military and Washington’s intelligence community over Afghanistan are almost as enduring as the war itself. The Pentagon and spy agencies have long differed over the strength of the Taliban and the effectiveness of the military’s campaign in Afghanistan.

Whether to keep counterterrorism forces in Afghanistan is at the heart of the Trump administration’s internal debate over the future of the war.

Ten current and former American and European officials who are familiar with the military and intelligence assessments of the strength of the ISIS in Afghanistan provided details of the debate to The New York Times. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the issue and confidential assessments of the terrorism threat.

A State Department envoy is leading negotiations for a peace deal that would give the Taliban political power in Afghanistan and withdraw international troops. For months, the Trump administration has been drafting plans to cut the 14,000 American forces who are currently there by half. On Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Mr. Trump had ordered a reduction in the number of troops in Afghanistan before the 2020 presidential election, but he did not specify a number.

“That’s my directive from the president of the United States,” Mr. Pompeo told the Economic Club of Washington. “He’s been unambiguous: End the endless wars. Draw down. Reduce. It won’t just be us.”

Yet at the same time, current and former officials, including the retired Army generals Jack Keane and David H. Petraeus, are lobbying the Trump administration to maintain several thousand Special Operations forces in Afghanistan. Doing so, they argue, will keep terrorist groups from returning and help prevent the collapse of the Afghan government and its security forces.

“U.S. troops in Afghanistan have prevented another catastrophic attack on our homeland for 18 years,” General Keane said in an interview. “Expecting the Taliban to provide that guarantee in the future by withdrawing all U.S. troops makes no sense.”

In Afghanistan, the threat of the ISIS is not a point of debate.

Brig. Gen. Ahmad Aziz, the commander of an Afghan Special Police Unit, said that ISIS attacks in Kabul, the capital, are becoming more advanced and that the group is growing.

During a May tour of the communications ministry in Kabul, General Aziz pointed out a neat, circular hole cut at a weak point between two walls. A month earlier, he said, ISIS gunmen had slipped through the hole and into the building to kill at least seven people.

“Their breach points are evolving,” General Aziz said, “and they’re picking targets that are more difficult for us to get to.”

Military and intelligence officials do agree that the ISIS, unlike the Taliban or other terrorist groups in Afghanistan, has focused on so-called soft targets such as civilian centers in Kabul and the city of Jalalabad.

But on the key question — whether ISIS can reach beyond the borders of Afghanistan and strike the West — the American military in Afghanistan and intelligence agencies in Washington diverge.

One senior intelligence official said the ISIS-Afghanistan branch lacks the organizational sophistication of the core group in Syria and Iraq, which had a bureaucracy dedicated to planning attacks in Europe and cultivating operatives overseas.

Ambassador Nathan A. Sales, the State Department’s counterterror coordinator, called the ISIS Khorasan “a major problem in the region.” And, he added, it poses a threat to the United States.

“What we have to do is make sure that ISIS-Khorasan, which has committed a number of attacks in the region, is not able to engage in external operations,” Mr. Sales told reporters at the State Department on Thursday.

Some analysts said it was dangerous to suggest that ISIS in Afghanistan did not have the capability to threaten the West.

“I would never rule out any of these jihadis ever threatening the West, because their ideology is inherently anti-America,” said Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.

But whether the American military should remain in Afghanistan, he said, should not hinge just on the threat from ISIS or other extremists. “The war has been stagnant and poorly managed for so long,” Mr. Joscelyn said, “that it is hard to argue for the status quo.”

ISIS in Afghanistan surfaced in 2015 and was quickly dismissed by Pentagon officials merely as a breakaway group from the Taliban in Pakistan, but one with little ability to expand given the pervasiveness of other hard-liners.

The New York Times



Iran Shifts Focus from Lebanon War to Economic, Oil Challenges

A handout picture provided by the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei shows him addressing members of the army's navy during an official gathering in Tehran on November 27, 2024. (Photo by KHAMENEI.IR / AFP)
A handout picture provided by the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei shows him addressing members of the army's navy during an official gathering in Tehran on November 27, 2024. (Photo by KHAMENEI.IR / AFP)
TT

Iran Shifts Focus from Lebanon War to Economic, Oil Challenges

A handout picture provided by the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei shows him addressing members of the army's navy during an official gathering in Tehran on November 27, 2024. (Photo by KHAMENEI.IR / AFP)
A handout picture provided by the office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei shows him addressing members of the army's navy during an official gathering in Tehran on November 27, 2024. (Photo by KHAMENEI.IR / AFP)

While officially welcoming the ceasefire in Lebanon, Tehran has expressed cautious and reserved positions on the recent developments. Even as it reiterates its intention to respond to Israeli actions, Iran has stated it will take “regional developments” into account before deciding its next steps.

Meanwhile, domestic debates about Iran’s economic challenges are intensifying. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf acknowledged the country’s struggles with oil production and transportation to global markets, while Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, described Iran’s economic problems as “chronic” and unlikely to be resolved easily.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on Wednesday that Iran reserves the right to respond to Israeli airstrikes conducted last month. However, he noted that Tehran is also closely monitoring other regional developments, including the ceasefire in Lebanon. Speaking to reporters in Lisbon, Araghchi welcomed the truce between Israel and Lebanon, expressing hope it would lead to a lasting peace. The Israeli strikes on Iran on October 26 came in response to a missile attack launched by Tehran on Israel earlier that month.

In a separate address to Iranian naval commanders, Khamenei called for enhancing the combat capabilities of Iran’s armed forces to deter potential aggressors. While Khamenei did not specifically mention the Lebanon ceasefire, he emphasized that military readiness must serve as a clear warning to adversaries that any confrontation will come at a high cost.

During a parliamentary session, Ghalibaf discussed Iran’s diminishing leverage in global oil markets. According to ISNA news agency, Ghalibaf remarked: “Oil was once our tool to threaten enemies, but that time is gone. What oil can we cut off? What market do we control?”

He further noted that Iran is currently incapable of achieving the 8% economic growth rate needed, citing the high costs of extracting natural gas as a significant hurdle.

“Even if Iran could produce oil,” he added, “it faces difficulties in transporting it.” Ghalibaf emphasized that Iran’s economic challenges extend far beyond issues such as the use of fuel oil in power plants.

The parliamentary speaker urged both reformist and conservative lawmakers to support the proposed Seventh Development Plan. He also criticized legislative delays in implementing development goals, highlighting the need for reforms in income tax policies and budget allocations for media, as reported by the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency.

Larijani acknowledged in a recorded 100-minute interview with Tasnim that Iran’s economy suffers from chronic issues, adding that Western sanctions alone are not to blame. Larijani briefly touched on the situation in Lebanon and Palestine but avoided addressing the fate of the “resistance” or the “unity of fronts.”