Panjshir Resistance Holds as Taliban yet to Name Government

Afghan resistance forces in the Panjshir valley are holding out against the Taliban. (AFP)
Afghan resistance forces in the Panjshir valley are holding out against the Taliban. (AFP)
TT

Panjshir Resistance Holds as Taliban yet to Name Government

Afghan resistance forces in the Panjshir valley are holding out against the Taliban. (AFP)
Afghan resistance forces in the Panjshir valley are holding out against the Taliban. (AFP)

Fresh fighting was reported Saturday between the Taliban and resistance forces in Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley, as the extremists finalize a new government that will set the tone for their rule.

Facing the challenge of morphing from insurgents to rulers, the Taliban appear determined to snuff out the Panjshir resistance before announcing who will lead the country in the aftermath of Monday’s US troop withdrawal, which was supposed to end two decades of war.

But Panjshir, which held out for nearly a decade against the Soviet Union’s occupation and also the Taliban’s first rule from 1996-2001, is stubbornly holding out.

Fighters from the so-called National Resistance Front (NRF) -- made up of anti-Taliban militia and former Afghan security forces -- are understood to have stockpiled a significant armory in the valley, around 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of Kabul and guarded by a narrow gorge.

‘Under invasion’
Celebratory gunfire rang out in the capital Kabul overnight as rumors spread the valley had fallen, but the Taliban made no official claim Saturday and a resident told AFP by phone that the reports were false.

The Emergency Hospital in Kabul said two people were killed and 20 wounded by the salvos, as the Taliban tweeted a stern admonishment and warned its fighters to stop.

“Avoid firing in the air and thank God instead,” said chief spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, tipped to become the new regime’s information minister.

“The weapons and bullets given to you are public property. No one has the right to waste them. The bullets can also harm civilians, don’t shoot in vain.”

In Panjshir, former vice-president Amrullah Saleh, holed out alongside Ahmad Massoud -- the son of legendary anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud -- admitted the perilous position of the NRF.

“The situation is difficult, we have been under invasion,” Saleh said in a video message.

Usually known for his sharp Western suits, Saleh was filmed wearing a traditional shalwar kameez tunic and a flat woolen pakol cap favored by Panjshiris.

“The resistance is continuing and will continue,” he added.

Taliban and resistance tweets suggested the key district of Paryan had changed hands several times in the last few days, but that also could not be independently verified.

Aid talks
Away from the valley, the international community was coming to terms with having to deal with the new Taliban regime with a flurry of diplomacy.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is due on Sunday in Qatar, a key player in the Afghan saga and the location of the Taliban’s political office, though he is not expected to meet with the militants.

He will then travel to Germany, to lead a virtual 20-nation ministerial meeting on Afghanistan alongside German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas.

Pakistan’s intelligence chief Faiz Hameed was in Kabul, meanwhile. Hameed was reportedly in the city to be briefed by his country’s ambassador but is also likely to meet top Taliban officials with whom Islamabad has historically had very close relations.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is also set to convene a high-level meeting on Afghanistan in Geneva on September 13, to focus on humanitarian assistance for the country.

The United Nations has already restarted humanitarian flights to parts of Afghanistan, while the country’s flag carrier Ariana Afghan Airlines resumed domestic trips on Friday and the United Arab Emirates sent a plane carrying “urgent medical and food aid”.

Western Union and Moneygram, meanwhile, said they were restarting cash transfers, which many Afghans rely on from relatives abroad to survive.

China has already confirmed it will keep its embassy in Kabul open.

Afghanistan’s new rulers have pledged to be more accommodating than during their first stint in power, which also came after years of conflict -- first the Soviet invasion of 1979, and then a bloody civil war.

That regime was notorious for its brutal interpretation of Islamic law, and its treatment of women, who were forced inside and denied access to school and work.

This time around, the Taliban have made repeated declarations that they will not carry out revenge attacks on opponents, and women will have access to education and some employment.

They have promised a more “inclusive” government that represents Afghanistan’s complex ethnic makeup -- though women are unlikely to be included at the top levels.

In Kabul, dozens of women protested for a second day Saturday to demand the right to work and inclusion in the government.

Social media clips showed Taliban fighters and officials attempting to disperse the demonstrators and stopping people from filming with mobile phones.

Asked about the delay in naming the government, Australia-based Afghanistan expert Nishank Motwani told AFP it was likely a combination of factors.

“First reason is that the Taliban themselves have been stunned by their military success,” he said.

“If they get Panjshir before the government is formed it is good for their propaganda value but that is not the reason.”



Europe and the Dilemma of Preparing for a '2030 War'

French and Lithuanian soldiers operate a Caesar Mk-I wheeled self-propelled howitzer during a live fire exercise of Lithuanian and French troops along with NATO allies at the General Silvestras Zukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, on September 16, 2026.  (Photo by Petras Malukas / AFP)
French and Lithuanian soldiers operate a Caesar Mk-I wheeled self-propelled howitzer during a live fire exercise of Lithuanian and French troops along with NATO allies at the General Silvestras Zukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, on September 16, 2026. (Photo by Petras Malukas / AFP)
TT

Europe and the Dilemma of Preparing for a '2030 War'

French and Lithuanian soldiers operate a Caesar Mk-I wheeled self-propelled howitzer during a live fire exercise of Lithuanian and French troops along with NATO allies at the General Silvestras Zukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, on September 16, 2026.  (Photo by Petras Malukas / AFP)
French and Lithuanian soldiers operate a Caesar Mk-I wheeled self-propelled howitzer during a live fire exercise of Lithuanian and French troops along with NATO allies at the General Silvestras Zukauskas Training Area in Pabrade, Lithuania, on September 16, 2026. (Photo by Petras Malukas / AFP)

The possibility of the war in Europe expanding is no longer being discussed as a distant scenario or a theoretical assumption. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the continent has entered a new security phase in which military confrontation overlaps with cyberattacks, sabotage, airspace violations, disinformation campaigns, and pressure on infrastructure. What is concerning is that Europe is increasingly talking about preparing for a possible war with Russia toward the end of the decade, even as NATO continues to emphasize that there are no indications of an imminent attack.

Europe's current situation therefore carries two parallel messages. The first is that the risk of a broader confrontation has become more serious than at any time since the end of the Cold War. The second is that a full-scale war is not, at present, a scenario expected to break out tomorrow or the day after. Current concerns are primarily linked to the accumulation of "hybrid warfare" incidents and the possibility that Moscow could use limited or covert operations to test the alliance's readiness to respond.

Evidence of this is mounting. In recent months, there have been airspace-related incidents, including the interception and downing by NATO fighter jets of a Russian drone over Lithuania, as well as other incidents involving a Russian military aircraft, a Russian vessel, and a Danish military helicopter. In Germany, an attempted drone attack at Leipzig Airport was linked to a person suspected of having ties to Russia. At the same time, European governments have been warning of an increase in acts of sabotage, cyberattacks, and attacks targeting infrastructure.

Field Preparations

The issue is no longer limited to political warnings. Germany is preparing for the possibility of receiving large numbers of casualties in its hospitals, while Lithuania has updated its civilian evacuation plans, and military exercises have intensified across the Baltic region and the Nordic countries. German and Swedish forces have conducted joint exercises near the strategically important island of Gotland, while NATO forces have held other exercises near Russia's Kaliningrad exclave, located between Poland and Lithuania and about 360 kilometers from Russia's main territory.

But the most contentious question concerns not only what is happening now, but also the date for a war that is increasingly being discussed, both privately and publicly, in Europe: 2029 to 2030.

Why the End of the Decade?

The official European and NATO explanation is not that war will break out by 2030. Rather, assessments refer to a period in which Russia could have rebuilt its military capabilities following the war in Ukraine and re-equipped its forces sufficiently to threaten NATO's eastern flank. General Carsten Breuer, Germany's Inspector General of the Bundeswehr and the country's highest-ranking military officer, explains that referring to a specific date is not a prophecy, but a timeframe for assessing the Russian military's potential ability to recover its strength. According to assessments attributed to NATO, Moscow could, by the end of the decade, have accumulated the resources and capabilities needed to launch a potential attack.

This is where Europe's political dilemma emerges. The more frequently warnings are issued about a possible war in 2029 or 2030, the more the dates themselves become part of public consciousness. More importantly, European officials are calling for increased defense spending, governments are rebuilding their military capabilities, and NATO is intensifying its exercises, while the idea of preparing for a future war is becoming a permanent policy.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has articulated this logic by saying that Europe is "safe now," but may not be so in three to five years, using this timeframe to argue for increased defense spending. At the same time, European officials have spoken about the need to prepare to respond to "Russian aggression," rather than about a European decision to go to war with Russia.

Between Prevention and Response

Against this backdrop, one of the most interesting aspects of the situation becomes clearer: Is Europe working to prevent war, or has it begun treating war as a possible outcome for which it must prepare?

The distinction is not merely semantic. Military preparedness can serve as a deterrent, with the aim of convincing an adversary that the cost of an attack would be high. At the same time, however, the intensity of the rhetoric surrounding war can make a scenario that seemed unlikely only a few years ago part of the daily political debate.

In this context, some European voices have also begun calling for a return to dialogue with Moscow. Finnish President Alexander Stubb said it was time for the European Union to begin opening channels of communication with Russia, while European Council President António Costa spoke of Europe's readiness for possible negotiations concerning Ukraine. The European Union is discussing designating a point of contact for such talks.

This tension between military preparedness and the need for dialogue reflects Europe's underlying dilemma. On one hand, public pressure is growing to end the war and reduce the amount of money being spent on weapons. On the other hand, European governments believe that ending the war on certain terms could allow Russia to rapidly rebuild its military strength, while Europe itself is still in a transitional phase of rebuilding its armed forces.

Ukraine finds itself at the center of this equation. Continued European military support means a continued flow of weapons to Kyiv, but it also means the war continues. Military support thus becomes both a means of assisting Ukraine and a means of maintaining military pressure on Russia while Europe waits to restore its own defense capabilities.

A Psychological Campaign?

None of these calculations means that a war between Russia and NATO has become inevitable. On the contrary, NATO sources have confirmed that there is currently no imminent threat of an attack. The alliance's official assessment has not changed, nor have the allies received a formal briefing on new intelligence indicating an imminent attack.

It was notable that Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys said political statements could be part of a coordinated campaign to warn Moscow against testing NATO's collective-defense provision under Article 5.

At the same time, the figures illustrate why there is concern. Between January and August 2026, 100 officially recorded hybrid warfare incidents were documented in Europe, compared with 60 during the same period the previous year, according to Ukraine's Sahajdachny Security Center. A NATO source said the actual number could exceed 200 incidents if cyberattacks were excluded, adding that NATO institutions face thousands of cyberattacks each month.

Perhaps the clearest indication of the scale of European concern came on September 18, when French President Emmanuel Macron brought together party leaders and candidates for the upcoming presidential election at the Élysée Palace for a confidential security meeting. Participants received a briefing from senior intelligence officials on the evolving threat. Macron said the nature of the Russian threat in Europe was changing and that sabotage, which had previously targeted primarily government or military facilities, could shift toward targets capable of causing civilian casualties.

Europe therefore appears caught between two wars: an ongoing war in Ukraine and a potential war for which preparations are being made toward the end of the decade. Between them lies a broad space of deterrence, sabotage, cyberwarfare, military exercises, and warnings.

Talk of 2029 or 2030 may simply be a planning framework for rebuilding Europe's military capabilities, or it may form part of a deterrence strategy specifically intended to prevent Moscow from considering a test of NATO. But the risk lies in allowing preparation for war to become a permanent state, and in allowing the scenario of war itself to become more familiar than the prospect of peace.

Ultimately, the current evidence does not indicate that Europe is inevitably heading toward war with Russia. It does, however, indicate something more complex: Europe has begun acting on the assumption that it must be prepared for such a war, while at the same time continuing to search for a path that could prevent it. The latter is a responsibility shared by both sides.


France Working on UN Resolution to Restore Freedom of Navigation in Strait of Hormuz

Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, September 23, 2026. Picture taken through a window. REUTERS/Stringer
Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, September 23, 2026. Picture taken through a window. REUTERS/Stringer
TT

France Working on UN Resolution to Restore Freedom of Navigation in Strait of Hormuz

Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, September 23, 2026. Picture taken through a window. REUTERS/Stringer
Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, September 23, 2026. Picture taken through a window. REUTERS/Stringer

France is working on a draft United Nations Security Council resolution backing freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a UN diplomat said on Friday.

The resolution would reaffirm the need to respect freedom of navigation in the strait, a flashpoint in the war in Iran, citing its importance for global shipments critical for food and energy security, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because discussions on the measure have been private.

The proposed UN resolution would recall the need to respect the Law of the Sea and support peaceful initiatives aimed at ensuring safe passage in the strait, the UN diplomat added.

Iran’s disruption of the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas transited before the war, has emerged as its main point of leverage.

The effects have been felt far beyond the Middle East and pose political problems for US President Donald Trump and his Republican Party ahead of November’s midterm congressional elections.

Paris has unsuccessfully attempted in the past to put a resolution together on the subject, but the latest move follows talks between France's President Emmanuel Macron on Monday evening and Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

“Trump and Macron discussed the topic on the sidelines of this week’s annual UN gathering of global leaders,” the diplomat said. It also was discussed with Arab nations and Iran.

After his meeting the ⁠US president at Trump Tower in New York, Macron said: “Several options were discussed. We will be working on diplomatic solutions over the coming hours, which could make it possible, even without a comprehensive agreement, to find ways of allowing more container ships and oil tankers to transit.”


CNN Blocked from Trump Trip on Saturday

CNN Senior Reporter Betsy Klein reports from the White House, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
CNN Senior Reporter Betsy Klein reports from the White House, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
TT

CNN Blocked from Trump Trip on Saturday

CNN Senior Reporter Betsy Klein reports from the White House, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
CNN Senior Reporter Betsy Klein reports from the White House, Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

CNN reporters have been barred from traveling with US President Donald Trump as planned on Saturday, in a new move by the White House to limit the news network's access.

The president last week sought to ban three US outlets -- CNN, MS NOW and Politico -- from the White House, accusing them of providing only negative coverage on him.

After journalists with the three outlets were blocked from entering the White House complex, a judge ordered their access to be temporarily restored, saying Trump's move was likely unconstitutional.

For Trump's trip on Saturday to Tennessee, CNN had been scheduled to be the TV network in the press "pool" traveling with him.

However, a schedule released by the White House on Friday evening did not list CNN or any of the TV networks in the TV pool rotation.

The pool is a rotating group of journalists that travel with the president and provide coverage to other outlets, due to limited space.

The White House schedule only listed a "Secondary TV" correspondent and crew: Lindell TV -- a staunchly pro-Trump outlet run by his close ally, businessman Mike Lindell.

Earlier this week, when CNN's White House access was still revoked, the top five US broadcasters made a rare joint move to halt pool coverage of the White House in solidarity.

"The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting," ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC said.

CNN declined to comment when reached Friday by AFP. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.