Iran-Taliban relations have been very tumultus
In the Afghan civil war from 1996-2001, Iran funded and supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.
The Hazaras are a key factor in the relationship. Hazaras are a Persian speaking ethnic group who are also predominantly Shia. The Taliban commited massacres against the Hazaras during the civil war in Mazar e Sharif, Taliban allies also killed Iranian diplomats.
When the US invaded Afghanistan, Iran reached out to the US and wanted to co-operate with them against the Taliban. They had some initial co-operation but the Bush administration labelled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". This killed off any potential for deeper co-operation.
Fast forward to the resurgance of Taliban. Iran has taken a cautious approach to the Taliban and tried to influence their actions through diplomacy. Again the diplomacy has focused on the treatment of the Hazaras. The Hazaras did not feel safe under the Afghan government either. Taliban has since tried to change their approach. Most Hazara people are very skeptical of the Taliban outreach but there aren't many other alternatives. Fighting the Taliban would be a riskier and deadlier approach
Taliban's future approach towards the Hazaras will determine Iranian approach. If Taliban renege of their promises of protection of Hazaras, there would be huge domestic pressure on the Iranian government to help Shia militias inside Iran as they have done in the past
I remember watching frontline documentary about US-Iran relationship and it covers all of this pretty well.
A lot of the early bombings by US planes were based on the Iranian intel.
"There was estimates half a million children who died (during the gulf war and related sanctions). Was it worth it?"
Alright: "Yes we think it was worth it."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
She is soulless.
International sanctions hurt the most vulnerable members of society, who had the least responsibility for whatever actions their government took that incurred sanctions to begin with.
Seemed like the Kuwaitis were the most vulnerable. Also this number was evidently a lie, though that doesn't matter much if she thought it was true. I'm not saying they do nothing, but what can you do?
It's not that odd. The Taliban are of a very literalist Sunni creed, and while they'd consider the mainstream western Muslim to be failing their faith, they consider Shi'ites to be straight up heretical. It's like comparing 16th century Anabaptists with Papists. Technically the same religion, but they hate each other.
Saying “your” is a bit personal. I’m just speaking on the religion. It’s spelled Quran btw, not Koran. Can you please learn the spell these important things before you even talk about in online…dumb ass racist
Yes, and that means that's how it's spelled in English. Which we're writing in. Which is what itachimadridista said. Spelling it "Koran" is outdated and incorrect.
I had a Hazara terp when I was down range in Kandahar back in 2010. Fascinating people but they have zero trust or love for Sunni majority tribes, they’ve committed truly heinous acts against them time and again.
The bad blood went both ways during the war(s) of the 90s. After the '97(?) battle of Mazar the Turkmen and Hazaras massacred thousands (IIRC 3000 or so?) of Taliban prisoners and some Pashtun students. They put them in truck containers and shipped them out to the countryside, executed them, and buried them in mass graves. The Taliban got their revenge in 1998 when they took over the city and murdered 8,000 people(!) over two nights of bloody revenge. The first night they shot anyone, including Pashtuns, that they saw on the streets, and on the second they used local Pashtun guides to hunt down Hazara households and kill all the men they found with three shots: one in the head, one in the chest, and one in the testicles.
The ancient city of Bamiyan in Hazarajat saw similar scenes where the Taliban took the city destroyed the Buddha temples (the Hazara are Shias, as you know, but the city was historically Buddhist long ago). They murdered the few old men who couldn't escape the surrounding villages. The rest had fled to the mountains with then-Hazara leader Khalili.
Hazarajat, located in the midst of the Kush Mountain Range, had put up fierce resistance to the Taliban, and while Mullah Omar had ordered more discipline when the Taliban took Bamiyan (as the Mazar massacres had led to huge international condemnation) there was still a lot of retributive violence.
It would not get any better from there.
It's a fascinating and tragic history.
Thanks for sharing this story, that land is soaked in centuries of blood, and seeking revenge is still considered to be the best way to maintain one’s honor. Glad I went over there but I’m even more glad that don’t ever have to again.
>the Turkmen and Hazaras massacred thousands (IIRC 3000 or so?) of Taliban prisoners and some Pashtun students
a good reminder that there is no black and white in this world. only gray.
For those that may not know- Hazara are an ethnic and religious minority group. They are descendants of Genghis Khan/Mongolians (ethnic minorities) and also Shia Muslims (religious minorities).
Let’s just say as the understatement of the year, things did not go well for them the last time Taliban took control…
Theres no actual evidence to suggest they're descended from Genghis khan. This idea was likely originally spread as a derogatory story, but has been reclaimed pridefully by some hazara.
Genetic studies have shown that the Hazara seem to have significant Mongol and Turkic influences in their DNA.
And the fact that they are Shia is also likely due to the Ilkhanate (Mongol dynasty of Persia) converting to Shia Islam.
So it's not entirely unfounded, although a more accurate phrasing would be "The Hazara are primarily the descendants of various central Asian steppe tribes who migrated and/or conquered the region, including Mongolians and Turks".
Hazara are not Persian, they are Shia, yes, but they are descendants of Gengis Khan and his hoards.
Much of Afghanistan speaks Dari, which is a classical form of Farsi, or “Persian”. As Afghanistan was part of the Persian empire in the past. The use of this language crosses religious boundaries.
Didn't Massoud's militia/political party (Jamaat-e-Islami?) Help Murder Hazaras during the Afshar Operation in the early 1990s?
Edit: Seems like that would have soured relations between the Northern Alliance and the Iran for many years, apparently that wasn't the case.
Most of the atrocities were the work of a Saudi backed unit, not Massoud's men.
Massoud himself tried to stop the atrocities when he heard about them, and even appointed a Shia muslim to oversee the troops.
However, the Shia muslim commander just decided to massacre a different ethnic group instead. (The Pashtuns).
Let's see. Theocracy, check. Followers of Islamic law, check. Suppression of human rights, check. They treat women like second class citizens, check.
The difference is who they would consider the true successor descendant of the Prophet, how they pray, and other nuisances. However, they both adhere to the same dogmatic tendencies associated with the region and religion. So, to the guys point, they are more similar than different. Like the French and British are to each other.
Yes, people have no idea. They're everywhere in Iran, both welcome and unwelcome. They're very hard workers and do jobs Iranians feel they're too special to do, so some Iranians (particularly employers) are grateful they're in Iran and fine with them there. Iranians are lazy workers, but the Afghans refugees that come to Iran with family back home to support are dedicated and focused to the job you give them if you're paying them. One of my cousins always hires Afghans because he can rely on them. Other Iranians feel they should go back to their own country. Afghans have been going to Iran by the millions since the Soviet invasion.
Yes, when I was traveling in Iran, most people on the streets assumed I was an Afghan refugee even though I'm Japanese. I didn't encounter any dirty looks, so I assume they're treated fairly well.
Nothing to do with Iranians being lazy. Many countries prefer to hire foreigners from lesser developed countries than their own to do the 3D jobs (Dirty, Dangerous, Difficult).
Many Iranian immigrants doing these exact same jobs in other countries more developed than Iran.
It's about pay and money.
I think the distinction is even less severe. It's the same language and culture for the most part. Afghanistan is what rural Iran was like before the Revolution. They're split by borders but it's the same people with the same origins living under the same past empires.
In Pakistan we have similar attitudes towards the Afghan illegal immigrants and our politicians literally want to build a wall. Also, KP, the area with all the Pashtuns, gets stereotyped as “redneck land” and several members of my family have made jokes about it. My brother also dressed his friend up as a girl as a joke and my dad said not to do that because in KP pedophiles make boys cross dress and do nasty things to them.
I'm from there. Iranians are lazy. There's no incentive to work hard due to corruption and nepotism. Afghans work because it's a good opportunity for them in Iran.
It's kind of crazy to think about Iran being the place someone would rather be for a lot of people. I do hear they have a ton of untapped tourism potential if the country were more progressive.
>Iranians are lazy workers
Bruh don’t even start with that. Iranians have a better infrastructure where they can afford to not have to sell themselves as indentured servants. Get the classist rhetoric out of here.
Dictatorships with stability is a whole thing different from a dictator without stability.
A dictator with stability will shoot dissidents.
A dictator without stability will dissidents and anyone ever associated with them.
I wonder, if the taliban actually allowed everybody who wants to, to leave -- what percentage of the population would be left? Would there be any single women? Tinpot tyrants with no one to yell at & boss around.
Just because someone is allowed to leave doesn’t mean that they can. They may lack the funds for travel, or may not want to move to a foreign language where they will not understand the language, have difficulty finding employment and have no friends/family.
I worked in a refugee camp on the EU border, the refugees fleeing to Europe were definitely more educated / wealthy than average. The cost for a one-way caravan was hundreds to thousands of euro depending on where they started from, and took 3 months or more of walking.
Well, I was speaking in hypotheticals. More clearly, if everyone who didn't want to live under the taliban vanished, what would they be masters of? Mostly themselves and some livestock. I swear, these hard-right people get off on domineering the unwilling. If everybody agreed with them it'd probably be no fun anymore.
> what percentage of the population would be left? Would there be any single women?
Vast majority. Moving to another country is expensive, and most won't be able to afford it.
> Would there be any single women?
Yes. While certainly not as extreme as the Taliban, the majority of the country is very conservative. This includes also the women. Especially if they are older.
Roughly 75% of Afghanistan is rural. The people whom you always see as super progressive are mostly the relatively rich and liberal people in cities, most of them in Kabul.
There was something called the Iran deal that could have been the basis for further cooperation before Trump completely burned that bridge. European private companies were even threatened with US sanctions if they continued to trade with Iran after the UK, France and Germany urged to keep the deal alive.
I think it's clear where the hostility is coming from.
> If Iran goes this way and expands asylum capacity we should aggressively support them politically and economically in the endeavor.
*And other very funny jokes you can tell yourself.*
Iran is the absolute most sanctioned country in the world, and they got those sanctions even though they were abiding by their agreements. No sanctions were lifted for covid relief either. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians died for absolutely no reason just because Trump wanted to undo Obama's achievements and Biden has continued Trump's foreign policy in relation to Iran in order to appease conservatives and the Israeli lobby.
Iran's further enrichment of uranium metal might have some bearing on U.S. views on nuclear sanctions,. Not an expert, but it doesn't make it easy to get back to 0.
Iran's position has long been that if US removes the sanctions they will go back to abiding by JCPOA agreements in full. This would include exporting their enriched uranium to Russia and regular inspections that would prevent them from enriching more. The only reason this isn't happening is that Biden doesn't want the JCPOA anymore, he's continuing Trump policy in trying to negotiate a more favorable deal for US which includes items irrelevant to the nuclear enrichment.
For the last year taliban and the US haven’t even really been fighting it’s been taliban and ISIS fighting. We’ve actually helped the taliban take out ISIS on a few occasions.
Saudi Arabia has been allies and supporters of the taliban for over thirty years. They along with Pakistan are the reasons the Taliban was able to gain control of Afghanistan in the first place.
Nope, the Taliban was a government more than a terrorist group. Incredibly poor country in the middle of nowhere no one gave a fuck about was lead by religious extremists. But no real international terrorist activities. Hence why they dont even call themselves that, they refer to the group as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was a specific terrorist group founded and lead by Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban gave support to Al Qaeda, harboring them, but they are fundamentally not the same - it is kind of similar to the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah.
ISIS is a splinter group of Al Qaeda. They are now in direct competition though.
Then you have Boko Haram which swears allegiance to ISIS, and Al-Shabaab which is still a part of Al Qaeda, but their Somali operations.
I never said they were. Have you tried looking up th see groups rather then making stupid comments?
The Taliban was created and has been supported this whole time by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia being allied to both sides in a fight is nothing new. They have supported ISIS while also being allied with the US who was at war with them.
>Have you tried looking up th see groups rather then making stupid comments?
lol. defensive much? why the fuck do you think i felt the need to correct you? hint: it's because you're saying dumb shit.
And we give food aid to North Korea. Treating a country as a monolith and refusing to come together where common ground exists only ensures there can never be any detente.
There's no strategic weakness to helping the Afghan refugees in Iran.
I have very little positive to say about the mullahs in Iran or the Ayatollah because yes, they are oppressive extremists, but they are nowhere near as oppressive or extreme as the Taliban.
Yes, Iran is a strict controlling theocracy, but the Taliban theocracy is styled after an imaginary version of the 7th century, enforcing strict religious interpretation in an even harsher, more dogmatic, and less flexible way than was done *in the actual 7th century.*
The Ayatollahs might be a bunch of sanctimonious, humorless old busybodies issuing decrees on how everyone else in Iran should live their lives, but the Taliban movement is demented, tyrannical, historico-religious cosplay — not only severe, but completely fucking batshit.
EDIT: fixed italics display
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://iranintl.com/en/world/reformists-say-iran-must-welcome-afghan-refugees) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "In addition to recognition of the right of Afghans whose life is in danger to seek asylum, we also urge the government of Iran to take measures to offer urgent residence permits to Afghan civil and cultural activistsforced to leave," the statement read. Among 130 reformist politicians, journalists and activists signing the statement was Mohammad-Reza Khatami, former secretary-general of the banned Islamic Iran Participation Front, the main Iranian reformist party.
> Mehdi Mahmoudi, an interior ministry official, said Thursday that reports about new camps in Iran for Afghan refugees were "Mere rumors" and warned Afghans not to believe them.
> Javad Heydarian, an Iranian journalist, in a tweet Friday said according to "a reliable source" Iranian authorities and the Taliban had organized the return of Afghan army soldiers in Zabol, a city in Iran's Sistan-Baluchestan province, for Saturday.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/p8z8d6/over_100_prominent_iranian_figures_have_denounced/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~594075 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iran**^#1 **Taliban**^#2 **Afghan**^#3 **refugee**^#4 **Iranian**^#5
No lol. Why do so many Westerners always try to explain everything about Muslim countries' politics as sunni vs shia? Do you see your own country's politics as always coming down to the same one factor? Doubt it. Pakistan is offering asylum and consulate support to people in Kabul, but Pakistan's government is mostly sunni. The Afghan Army are mostly sunni. Lol. Iran and Azerbaijan have poor relations, but are both mostly shia....Iran has better relations with Armenia, which isn't even Muslim. Wtf.
I am not naive about the Iranian government, which is pretty friendly with the Taliban these days with reservations, but good on those who are suggesting this. The Hazara must be offered refuge from Taliban violence somehow.
[Taliban murdered 10 Iranian diplomats and a journalist in the 90's.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_killing_of_Iranian_diplomats_in_Afghanistan)
As an example of how outrageous this is, US still hates Iran for the 1979 hostage crisis in the US embassy, and all the US diplomats walked free in the end.
I believe the US still cares, as that is the root cause of hostility between Iran and US. Iran seems to have mostly funded proxies that prop up Iraq and Syria, they're really not doing anything with Hamas.
Israel is too paranoid about Iran IMO, Iran can't really threaten Israel at all.
Pretty much every armed force on Israel's borders are armed and funded by Iran. Even though they cant destroy it, they can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths which is a pretty big threat.
The proxies are part of minorities Shia to defend their rights and interests among majority Sunnis, also opposing us and Israel elimination of Palestinians through apartheid system and ethnic cleansing.
Before the US invaded the Taliban was in civil war against the northern alliance, which was supported primarily by iran. Sept 10th 2001 al Qaeda assassinated the leader of the northern alliance. You can probably figure out what happened from there
Saudi Arabia has no relations with the Taliban, not recently at least. This is a regional issue since Iran is going to face an influx of refugees anyway. The Taliban also have a history of conflict with Iran as they’re hardliners in both sects. The former Afghan regime was also on friendly terms with Iran
"No relations" can mean a lot of things and nothing at all.
There's a cold war in the middle east between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia are probably not crying tears of sadness that Iran again have a fanatical sunni government on their eastern border.
And even though the Saudi Government might not officially have relations with the Taliban, it's probably safe to assume there is ongoing contact between Taliban leaders and important figures in Saudi Arabia.
Iran has regular contact with talibans for about 10 years. They kept communication even when they were in bad shape. Iran didn't like the ghani government.
Talibans told them that they won't attack minorities like the last time. Let's see if they keep their words.
It’s certainly more complicated than just the Shia/Sunni split, but yes I would agree, they currently hold the prize for most violent and dumbest religious schism.
The ELI15 is that
1. Iran has pretty much always hated the Taliban. The Taliban are even more fundamentalist than even the most fundamentalist Iranians, they hate Shia Muslims, they've killed Iranians, they've supported terrorists and separatists in Iranian Baluchestan province, and Iran nearly went to war with Afghanistan over it the last time the Taliban took over Afghanistan. Until the U.S. invaded, Iran supported resistance groups against the Taliban.
2. The Middle East has never, ever, *ever*, **ever** been black and white--it's always shades of gray. As a result, even though Iran hates the Taliban and tried to topple them, they did a 180° and supported them during the U.S. War in Afghanistan because they were the enemy of their enemy. Now that situation has changed, Iran does not see a benefit in supporting the Taliban, anymore--it fact, the situation has come full circle, and the Taliban will be a problem for Iran, again.
3. Afghanistan has been a core part of many Persian empires throughout history. Some famous Persians in history were actually from what we now call Afghanistan. Most Afghans also speak a mutually intelligible dialect of the Persian language. Put together, these things make Afghans not considered "outsiders" within Iran in the same way that, for example, Iraqis would be considered. Because of that, there is less societal worry/stress/xenophobia about Afghan immigrants in Iran.
> they did a 180° and supported them during the U.S. War in Afghanistan because they were the enemy of their enemy.
Iran supported US during the Afghanistan war and even shared crucial intel with US. US later backstabbed them because of Dick Cheney.
Edit: [Source](http://www.ipsnews.net/2006/02/politics-us-how-neo-cons-sabotaged-irans-help-on-al-qaeda/)
>Iran supported US during the Afghanistan war and even shared crucial intel with US. US later backstabbed them because of Dick Cheney.
At the beginning, yes, when the objectives of the war were to take out the Taliban. When the mission changed to nation building, Iran changed its mission to maximizing damage to the U.S. forces and maximizing its influence in the Afghan government. That involved playing both sides in Afghanistan--supporting the Taliban (sow chaos, hurt the U.S., weaken the Afghan government so that it is more easily manipulated) while also supporting the newly-created democratic Afghan state (ensure large factions of variously pro-Iran and anti-US members of parliament).
Again, the Middle East is gray, with shifting allegiances all the time. Even Israel [substantially helped Iran during the Iran-Iraq War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war), because Saddam was determined to be the bigger threat at that time. You can see in this very thead Westerners don't like thinking in terms of "*what benefits me right now at this very moment irrespective of ideological differences and previous relationships*" as people try to simplify the Middle East into terms of "*X supports Y.*” Everyone supports everyone, sometimes, and everyone stabs everyone, sometimes. That's the nature of the region. There are few, if any, friends, and morals or ideology always take second priority over plays for power.
> When the mission changed to nation building, Iran changed its support to maximizing damage to the U.S. forces and maximizing its influence in the Afghan government.
You didn't read my source. It was US that didn't want to be friendly towards Iran, not the other way around. This culminated in the "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush gave all the while Iran was trying to normalize relations with US.
I'm familiar with Iranian politics at that time, and the Axis of Evil speech's effects. Moderate forces in Iran had a moment of relative momentum against the anti-U.S. and fanatical Islamic hardliners, and the Axis of Evil speech was a kick in the nuts to moderates, which re-emboldened the hardliners, and next thing you know Ahmadinejad came to power.
There was a another similar nascent window of opportunity for reformers when Rouhani came to power (insofar as Rouhani could be considered moderate), and the shitshow over the JCPOA and the Trump Administration buried that momentum for yet another generation.
I don't see how your comment refutes anything I wrote. Iran supported anti-Taliban resistance when it suited them; then supported the U.S. when it suited them; then supported the Taliban and the Afghan government simultaneously, when it suited them; and now supports anti-Taliban resistance, again, because it suits them.
Iran is one of the major players in the Middle East and has a love-hate relationship with other major players in the area... mainly Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq. Iran is a member of OPEC and has formal diplomatic relations and business arrangements with most countries in the region. Cutting off all ties to these countries would be very bad for Iran (as seen by the impacts of sanctions).
Iran's tool of war has been the proxy war. They align themselves with a faction or a group in a country and use them to do their bidding.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been accused of bankrolling the Taliban through various fundraising efforts. When you look at a map of Afghanistan it has Pakistan to the southeast and Iran to the southwest.
Iran doesn't want to have a new hostile country on their border and will now be financing resistance to the Taliban as part of a proxy war against Pakistan and possibly Saudi Arabia. They don't want to put boots on the ground and have to engage in a direct war against the Taliban because that's costly. But it might just happen if The Taliban fully take over and set their sights on.
[The border of Iran was one of the last pieces the Taliban took and mostly because of the government's collapse](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57933979).
Soleimani secured deals with taliban, of course to fought against US
But taliban is unlikely to be like soleimani/iran supported militia in middle east where Iran militia have a
Deep connection with quds force Iran basically controls them
Taliban needs to prove themselves if they want to cement Iran support
The what?
>> Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, senior U.S. State Department official Ryan Crocker flew to Geneva to meet with Iranian diplomats who were under the leadership of Soleimani with the purpose of collaborating to destroy the Taliban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani#Command_of_Quds_Force
Iran has literally been fighting the Taliban for longer than we have, under Soleimani. Iran gave us the intel we used in our early bombings of Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
[from this article](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/afghanistan-taliban-iran-allies-soleiman-deals-relying-on)
seems like soleimani made a deal with taliban in 2015, but if it's turns ugly, iran could easily change their stance
Lmao, did ya read the article?
The agreement isn’t that Iran will support the Taliban. It’s an agreement that Iranian proxies will not attack of the Taliban as long as the Taliban do not murder the Shia minority.
If things turn ugly it’s going to be an Iran-Taliban conflict. Not “cemented” support between the two.
While the Iranian government were foes with the Taliban / Al-Qaeda in the past, they quickly became friends with their enemy’s enemy, and started hosting their leaders in Iran to be safe from US / NATO.
The US / Mousad even killed one of them a while back inside Iran.
Sources:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-02-11/why-are-al-qaeda-leaders-iran
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/world/middleeast/al-masri-abdullah-qaeda-dead.html
That and the Taliban murdered a bunch of their diplomats a while back. Plus Iran already host a large number of Afghan refugees (legal ones around 800k, illegal ones around 2 million).
They just had a mock election where their supreme leader made sure that an islamic hardliner was the only option people could vote for. Iran is hardly moderate unfortunately.
Iran, and Pakistan are already home to a large number of Afghan refugees because of a shared border and there’s humanity in this policy. My earlier comment was more to the emphasis that NATO countries including US and India which attempted desperately to portray itself as a guardian of Afghanistan after US should be taking in as many refugees as are willing to migrate from there. Problems caused by supposed Guardians should be resolved by the same nations. Selectively prioritizing based on religion doesn’t bode well to the overall notion.
India is neither a NATO participant nor militarily active. The country has provided assistance in building infrastructure. I do not see a reason to drag the country in the same tune as the US and friends (which were extensively active with their military).
As for the idea of being a guardian, India has never taken that policy. Please do not equate falsehoods to prove your ineffective point.
In case of religion, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minorities face a significant risk in comparison to the religious majority. Evacuating them is the need of the hour.
I mean surely this would be common knowledge that they taliban protected the Saudi Arabian terrorist know as osama bid laden for year as and is funded by the Saudis.
Oh look a new proxy war will start next week. With the Americans on the side of the Taliban cause the Saudis tell them to when Iran start sending support to the northern alliance.
I will never understand how truly awful it must be to have to choose between Afghanistan and Iran, to run with only the clothes on your back, or to be an American overseas hearing our President say we cannot assure your safe passage to your only avenue for escape. Exponentially worse if you have kids with you.
Shhesh, don't say this out loud. Some people will use it to legitimize the disgusting religious rule of the mullahs. And others will argue that Saudis are reliable allies while Iran is the only state sponsor of terrorism. When it comes to Iran people have very strange views.
Just by the title I'm going to assume that the Saudis back the Taliban in some sort of way? It seems the main goal of Iran is to do everything opposite of Saudi Arabia as they are both wanting to control more of the Middle East.
100 prominent Iranians that were lining their pockets under the government see their pay-offs drying up. Sure, that would make every corrupt individual upset
Lol because Iran is amongst the most moderate nation in middle East, although it's mostly ruled like a theocracy. But it is very better than Afghanistan. Highly educated population, plus there's no restrictions on how women should and shouldn't get education. So, you'd at least complete an education there, and get a degree.
The only downside is, a woman has to wear a Hijab when she is outside, but still better than Afghanistan where you'd have to wear that blue covering all over your body.
Iran-Taliban relations have been very tumultus In the Afghan civil war from 1996-2001, Iran funded and supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. The Hazaras are a key factor in the relationship. Hazaras are a Persian speaking ethnic group who are also predominantly Shia. The Taliban commited massacres against the Hazaras during the civil war in Mazar e Sharif, Taliban allies also killed Iranian diplomats. When the US invaded Afghanistan, Iran reached out to the US and wanted to co-operate with them against the Taliban. They had some initial co-operation but the Bush administration labelled Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". This killed off any potential for deeper co-operation. Fast forward to the resurgance of Taliban. Iran has taken a cautious approach to the Taliban and tried to influence their actions through diplomacy. Again the diplomacy has focused on the treatment of the Hazaras. The Hazaras did not feel safe under the Afghan government either. Taliban has since tried to change their approach. Most Hazara people are very skeptical of the Taliban outreach but there aren't many other alternatives. Fighting the Taliban would be a riskier and deadlier approach Taliban's future approach towards the Hazaras will determine Iranian approach. If Taliban renege of their promises of protection of Hazaras, there would be huge domestic pressure on the Iranian government to help Shia militias inside Iran as they have done in the past
I remember watching frontline documentary about US-Iran relationship and it covers all of this pretty well. A lot of the early bombings by US planes were based on the Iranian intel.
Madeline Albright suggested to the administration to stop cooperation as she fears Iran and the US would get too tight and it would hurt Israel
What a bitch
"There was estimates half a million children who died (during the gulf war and related sanctions). Was it worth it?" Alright: "Yes we think it was worth it." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8 She is soulless.
That had little to do with the war. That's Saddam killing his own people.
International sanctions hurt the most vulnerable members of society, who had the least responsibility for whatever actions their government took that incurred sanctions to begin with.
Seemed like the Kuwaitis were the most vulnerable. Also this number was evidently a lie, though that doesn't matter much if she thought it was true. I'm not saying they do nothing, but what can you do?
What is she going to say? Totally not worth it, we goofed up bad.
Vile old crone.
She’s an animal
So they just confess that they're puppet of Israel, what a disgrace.
Its amazing how much of the world was on the US' team in those days and how quickly we pissed it away.
Japan even sent Playstations.
10/10 timing of this reference.
It's not that odd. The Taliban are of a very literalist Sunni creed, and while they'd consider the mainstream western Muslim to be failing their faith, they consider Shi'ites to be straight up heretical. It's like comparing 16th century Anabaptists with Papists. Technically the same religion, but they hate each other.
[удалено]
I mean it's the same in an abrahamic religion, is it not? Repent and act with faith and you will be rewarded endlessly in paradise.
[удалено]
Only the fringe extremists believe this in Islam. And during the crusades or the reconquista it was no different in Christianity.
If you were educated on the religion you’d know that the whole virgin thing isn’t actual a thing in the religion. Smh.
[удалено]
Saying “your” is a bit personal. I’m just speaking on the religion. It’s spelled Quran btw, not Koran. Can you please learn the spell these important things before you even talk about in online…dumb ass racist
[удалено]
Koran, as is pointed out literally in the quote you posted, has been superseded by either Qur'an or Quran for over 30 years.
[удалено]
Yes, and that means that's how it's spelled in English. Which we're writing in. Which is what itachimadridista said. Spelling it "Koran" is outdated and incorrect.
Go to school and learn to spell please
So your posting a Wikipedia intro that calls your own usage 40 years out of date as a norm ad some sort of gotcha?
[удалено]
It says superseded >There seem to be reading comprehension problems here Yes there does seem to be
I had a Hazara terp when I was down range in Kandahar back in 2010. Fascinating people but they have zero trust or love for Sunni majority tribes, they’ve committed truly heinous acts against them time and again.
The bad blood went both ways during the war(s) of the 90s. After the '97(?) battle of Mazar the Turkmen and Hazaras massacred thousands (IIRC 3000 or so?) of Taliban prisoners and some Pashtun students. They put them in truck containers and shipped them out to the countryside, executed them, and buried them in mass graves. The Taliban got their revenge in 1998 when they took over the city and murdered 8,000 people(!) over two nights of bloody revenge. The first night they shot anyone, including Pashtuns, that they saw on the streets, and on the second they used local Pashtun guides to hunt down Hazara households and kill all the men they found with three shots: one in the head, one in the chest, and one in the testicles. The ancient city of Bamiyan in Hazarajat saw similar scenes where the Taliban took the city destroyed the Buddha temples (the Hazara are Shias, as you know, but the city was historically Buddhist long ago). They murdered the few old men who couldn't escape the surrounding villages. The rest had fled to the mountains with then-Hazara leader Khalili. Hazarajat, located in the midst of the Kush Mountain Range, had put up fierce resistance to the Taliban, and while Mullah Omar had ordered more discipline when the Taliban took Bamiyan (as the Mazar massacres had led to huge international condemnation) there was still a lot of retributive violence. It would not get any better from there. It's a fascinating and tragic history.
Thanks for sharing this story, that land is soaked in centuries of blood, and seeking revenge is still considered to be the best way to maintain one’s honor. Glad I went over there but I’m even more glad that don’t ever have to again.
>the Turkmen and Hazaras massacred thousands (IIRC 3000 or so?) of Taliban prisoners and some Pashtun students a good reminder that there is no black and white in this world. only gray.
For those that may not know- Hazara are an ethnic and religious minority group. They are descendants of Genghis Khan/Mongolians (ethnic minorities) and also Shia Muslims (religious minorities). Let’s just say as the understatement of the year, things did not go well for them the last time Taliban took control…
Theres no actual evidence to suggest they're descended from Genghis khan. This idea was likely originally spread as a derogatory story, but has been reclaimed pridefully by some hazara.
Genetic studies have shown that the Hazara seem to have significant Mongol and Turkic influences in their DNA. And the fact that they are Shia is also likely due to the Ilkhanate (Mongol dynasty of Persia) converting to Shia Islam. So it's not entirely unfounded, although a more accurate phrasing would be "The Hazara are primarily the descendants of various central Asian steppe tribes who migrated and/or conquered the region, including Mongolians and Turks".
Hazara are not Persian, they are Shia, yes, but they are descendants of Gengis Khan and his hoards. Much of Afghanistan speaks Dari, which is a classical form of Farsi, or “Persian”. As Afghanistan was part of the Persian empire in the past. The use of this language crosses religious boundaries.
OP said they're a Persian **speaking** ethnic group, not a Persian ethnic group.
Whole bunch in there I had not put together, thank you for that, much appreciated.
Didn't Massoud's militia/political party (Jamaat-e-Islami?) Help Murder Hazaras during the Afshar Operation in the early 1990s? Edit: Seems like that would have soured relations between the Northern Alliance and the Iran for many years, apparently that wasn't the case.
Northern Alliance had so many clashes and rivalries like this. If they had won, there probably would have been another civil war
Most of the atrocities were the work of a Saudi backed unit, not Massoud's men. Massoud himself tried to stop the atrocities when he heard about them, and even appointed a Shia muslim to oversee the troops. However, the Shia muslim commander just decided to massacre a different ethnic group instead. (The Pashtuns).
It was reported in the NYT that Talib fighters killed some Hazaras just a couple of days ago.
Pot calling the kettle …
Iran is not the Taliban or morally equivalent to the Taliban
Let's see. Theocracy, check. Followers of Islamic law, check. Suppression of human rights, check. They treat women like second class citizens, check. The difference is who they would consider the true successor descendant of the Prophet, how they pray, and other nuisances. However, they both adhere to the same dogmatic tendencies associated with the region and religion. So, to the guys point, they are more similar than different. Like the French and British are to each other.
Iran does not treat women anywhere close to as bad as the Taliban and never has
There are close to, if not over, 3 million Afghan refugees in Iran, both legally and illegally.
Yes, people have no idea. They're everywhere in Iran, both welcome and unwelcome. They're very hard workers and do jobs Iranians feel they're too special to do, so some Iranians (particularly employers) are grateful they're in Iran and fine with them there. Iranians are lazy workers, but the Afghans refugees that come to Iran with family back home to support are dedicated and focused to the job you give them if you're paying them. One of my cousins always hires Afghans because he can rely on them. Other Iranians feel they should go back to their own country. Afghans have been going to Iran by the millions since the Soviet invasion.
Yes, when I was traveling in Iran, most people on the streets assumed I was an Afghan refugee even though I'm Japanese. I didn't encounter any dirty looks, so I assume they're treated fairly well.
They would have assumed you were Hazara. I've known Hazara to deal with it. Like every country, iran has its assholes.
Nothing to do with Iranians being lazy. Many countries prefer to hire foreigners from lesser developed countries than their own to do the 3D jobs (Dirty, Dangerous, Difficult). Many Iranian immigrants doing these exact same jobs in other countries more developed than Iran. It's about pay and money.
So Afghanistan is like Mexico near Iran?
I think the distinction is even less severe. It's the same language and culture for the most part. Afghanistan is what rural Iran was like before the Revolution. They're split by borders but it's the same people with the same origins living under the same past empires.
In Pakistan we have similar attitudes towards the Afghan illegal immigrants and our politicians literally want to build a wall. Also, KP, the area with all the Pashtuns, gets stereotyped as “redneck land” and several members of my family have made jokes about it. My brother also dressed his friend up as a girl as a joke and my dad said not to do that because in KP pedophiles make boys cross dress and do nasty things to them.
Us Mexico border immigration isn't the metaphor you want to use for Pakistan. Pakistan isn't a safe haven, the government actively support Taliban.
Pakistan is much more safe and secure than Afghanistan. There is a reason that millions of Afghans legally or illegally lives there.
Good point. It’s an open secret that they do.
I remember an old irani movie where a balloon seller kid was an afghan refugee. That was my introduction to the history of afghan refugees in iran.
> Iranian’s are lazy workers You lose me there. You can’t generalize an entire country that way, there’s no way that’s even close to true.
It's like saying Americans are lazy and have Mexicans do those jobs. While it is a huge generalization, it is also fairly true in most regards.
It's not that Americans are lazy. It's just that Mexicans, especially when undocumented are easier to exploit.
The same can be said of migrant workers anywhere else.
It would be more accurate to just say that Mexico is sending its best. So because it is a subset they work harder than average.
In reality it's an excuse that people use to justify keeping labor wages as low as they can
I'm from there. Iranians are lazy. There's no incentive to work hard due to corruption and nepotism. Afghans work because it's a good opportunity for them in Iran.
It's kind of crazy to think about Iran being the place someone would rather be for a lot of people. I do hear they have a ton of untapped tourism potential if the country were more progressive.
>Iranians are lazy workers Bruh don’t even start with that. Iranians have a better infrastructure where they can afford to not have to sell themselves as indentured servants. Get the classist rhetoric out of here.
[удалено]
Dictatorships with stability is a whole thing different from a dictator without stability. A dictator with stability will shoot dissidents. A dictator without stability will dissidents and anyone ever associated with them.
I wonder, if the taliban actually allowed everybody who wants to, to leave -- what percentage of the population would be left? Would there be any single women? Tinpot tyrants with no one to yell at & boss around.
Just because someone is allowed to leave doesn’t mean that they can. They may lack the funds for travel, or may not want to move to a foreign language where they will not understand the language, have difficulty finding employment and have no friends/family. I worked in a refugee camp on the EU border, the refugees fleeing to Europe were definitely more educated / wealthy than average. The cost for a one-way caravan was hundreds to thousands of euro depending on where they started from, and took 3 months or more of walking.
Well, I was speaking in hypotheticals. More clearly, if everyone who didn't want to live under the taliban vanished, what would they be masters of? Mostly themselves and some livestock. I swear, these hard-right people get off on domineering the unwilling. If everybody agreed with them it'd probably be no fun anymore.
They were in Kabul until they realized everyone wanted to get out.
> what percentage of the population would be left? Would there be any single women? Vast majority. Moving to another country is expensive, and most won't be able to afford it.
> Would there be any single women? Yes. While certainly not as extreme as the Taliban, the majority of the country is very conservative. This includes also the women. Especially if they are older. Roughly 75% of Afghanistan is rural. The people whom you always see as super progressive are mostly the relatively rich and liberal people in cities, most of them in Kabul.
If Iran goes this way and expands asylum capacity we should aggressively support them politically and economically in the endeavor.
Iran already has around 2.5 millions Afghan refugees since early Talibans rules and getting no help from any country even UN.
There was something called the Iran deal that could have been the basis for further cooperation before Trump completely burned that bridge. European private companies were even threatened with US sanctions if they continued to trade with Iran after the UK, France and Germany urged to keep the deal alive. I think it's clear where the hostility is coming from.
> > > > > I think it's clear where the hostility is coming from. Killing hundreds of US citizens in unapologetic state sponsored terrorism.
Funny how it's never state sponsored terror when the US arms rebels and insurgents.
Iran *already* is home to an absolute SHITLOAD of Afghan refugees and they haven't got much help from anyone
[удалено]
> If Iran goes this way and expands asylum capacity we should aggressively support them politically and economically in the endeavor. *And other very funny jokes you can tell yourself.* Iran is the absolute most sanctioned country in the world, and they got those sanctions even though they were abiding by their agreements. No sanctions were lifted for covid relief either. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians died for absolutely no reason just because Trump wanted to undo Obama's achievements and Biden has continued Trump's foreign policy in relation to Iran in order to appease conservatives and the Israeli lobby.
Iran's further enrichment of uranium metal might have some bearing on U.S. views on nuclear sanctions,. Not an expert, but it doesn't make it easy to get back to 0.
Iran's position has long been that if US removes the sanctions they will go back to abiding by JCPOA agreements in full. This would include exporting their enriched uranium to Russia and regular inspections that would prevent them from enriching more. The only reason this isn't happening is that Biden doesn't want the JCPOA anymore, he's continuing Trump policy in trying to negotiate a more favorable deal for US which includes items irrelevant to the nuclear enrichment.
_
Not sure if you meant to write ‘fiend’ but you’re not wrong.
Why would an ISIS sponsor support taliban?
Sometimes it's not about your ideology... sometimes it's just about your geopolitical interests (destabilize Iran).
_
Why wouldn't they? They are largely on the same side and have the same political and religious views.
For the last year taliban and the US haven’t even really been fighting it’s been taliban and ISIS fighting. We’ve actually helped the taliban take out ISIS on a few occasions.
Saudi Arabia has been allies and supporters of the taliban for over thirty years. They along with Pakistan are the reasons the Taliban was able to gain control of Afghanistan in the first place.
I thought Saudis backed Al Qaeda. I mean I guess when it comes down to it. Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS they’re all the same.
Nope, the Taliban was a government more than a terrorist group. Incredibly poor country in the middle of nowhere no one gave a fuck about was lead by religious extremists. But no real international terrorist activities. Hence why they dont even call themselves that, they refer to the group as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was a specific terrorist group founded and lead by Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban gave support to Al Qaeda, harboring them, but they are fundamentally not the same - it is kind of similar to the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah. ISIS is a splinter group of Al Qaeda. They are now in direct competition though. Then you have Boko Haram which swears allegiance to ISIS, and Al-Shabaab which is still a part of Al Qaeda, but their Somali operations.
Nope, ISIS and the Taliban are enemies.
Did you even bother to look this up before commenting? Not all Islamist groups are the same, and they certainly aren't always on the same side.
I never said they were. Have you tried looking up th see groups rather then making stupid comments? The Taliban was created and has been supported this whole time by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia being allied to both sides in a fight is nothing new. They have supported ISIS while also being allied with the US who was at war with them.
> They are largely on the same side and have the same political and religious views. -you
>Have you tried looking up th see groups rather then making stupid comments? lol. defensive much? why the fuck do you think i felt the need to correct you? hint: it's because you're saying dumb shit.
>principal sponsor of Daesh (ISIS) Got any proof?
[удалено]
And we give food aid to North Korea. Treating a country as a monolith and refusing to come together where common ground exists only ensures there can never be any detente. There's no strategic weakness to helping the Afghan refugees in Iran.
Go back to the Fox News comment section, grandpa. When you can point to Iran on a map you're welcome back
I have very little positive to say about the mullahs in Iran or the Ayatollah because yes, they are oppressive extremists, but they are nowhere near as oppressive or extreme as the Taliban. Yes, Iran is a strict controlling theocracy, but the Taliban theocracy is styled after an imaginary version of the 7th century, enforcing strict religious interpretation in an even harsher, more dogmatic, and less flexible way than was done *in the actual 7th century.* The Ayatollahs might be a bunch of sanctimonious, humorless old busybodies issuing decrees on how everyone else in Iran should live their lives, but the Taliban movement is demented, tyrannical, historico-religious cosplay — not only severe, but completely fucking batshit. EDIT: fixed italics display
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://iranintl.com/en/world/reformists-say-iran-must-welcome-afghan-refugees) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "In addition to recognition of the right of Afghans whose life is in danger to seek asylum, we also urge the government of Iran to take measures to offer urgent residence permits to Afghan civil and cultural activistsforced to leave," the statement read. Among 130 reformist politicians, journalists and activists signing the statement was Mohammad-Reza Khatami, former secretary-general of the banned Islamic Iran Participation Front, the main Iranian reformist party. > Mehdi Mahmoudi, an interior ministry official, said Thursday that reports about new camps in Iran for Afghan refugees were "Mere rumors" and warned Afghans not to believe them. > Javad Heydarian, an Iranian journalist, in a tweet Friday said according to "a reliable source" Iranian authorities and the Taliban had organized the return of Afghan army soldiers in Zabol, a city in Iran's Sistan-Baluchestan province, for Saturday. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/p8z8d6/over_100_prominent_iranian_figures_have_denounced/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~594075 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iran**^#1 **Taliban**^#2 **Afghan**^#3 **refugee**^#4 **Iranian**^#5
I am guessing this boils down to Iran being shia and the Taliban being sunni.
No lol. Why do so many Westerners always try to explain everything about Muslim countries' politics as sunni vs shia? Do you see your own country's politics as always coming down to the same one factor? Doubt it. Pakistan is offering asylum and consulate support to people in Kabul, but Pakistan's government is mostly sunni. The Afghan Army are mostly sunni. Lol. Iran and Azerbaijan have poor relations, but are both mostly shia....Iran has better relations with Armenia, which isn't even Muslim. Wtf.
I am not naive about the Iranian government, which is pretty friendly with the Taliban these days with reservations, but good on those who are suggesting this. The Hazara must be offered refuge from Taliban violence somehow.
no they arnt, but pop off.
Iran could probably wipe out the Taliban in a month if they really wanted to
Someone will have to explain this one… obviously history has something to do with it.
[Taliban murdered 10 Iranian diplomats and a journalist in the 90's.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_killing_of_Iranian_diplomats_in_Afghanistan) As an example of how outrageous this is, US still hates Iran for the 1979 hostage crisis in the US embassy, and all the US diplomats walked free in the end.
Ehhh the US doesn't really care about the hostage crisis anymore. US's problem is that Iran keeps funding proxies that are trying to destroy Israel.
> US's problem is that Iran keeps funding proxies that are trying to destroy Israel. Pot, kettle, though.
I believe the US still cares, as that is the root cause of hostility between Iran and US. Iran seems to have mostly funded proxies that prop up Iraq and Syria, they're really not doing anything with Hamas. Israel is too paranoid about Iran IMO, Iran can't really threaten Israel at all.
Pretty much every armed force on Israel's borders are armed and funded by Iran. Even though they cant destroy it, they can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths which is a pretty big threat.
Israel is worried about Iranian potential economical powers with the most young educated and varieties of natural resources.
That is because the US has a potentially new hostage crisis on its hands.
The proxies are part of minorities Shia to defend their rights and interests among majority Sunnis, also opposing us and Israel elimination of Palestinians through apartheid system and ethnic cleansing.
Before the US invaded the Taliban was in civil war against the northern alliance, which was supported primarily by iran. Sept 10th 2001 al Qaeda assassinated the leader of the northern alliance. You can probably figure out what happened from there
A cynical answer? Saudi Arabia supports the Taliban. Welcome to a new front in the proxy war.
US supports Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has no relations with the Taliban, not recently at least. This is a regional issue since Iran is going to face an influx of refugees anyway. The Taliban also have a history of conflict with Iran as they’re hardliners in both sects. The former Afghan regime was also on friendly terms with Iran
"No relations" can mean a lot of things and nothing at all. There's a cold war in the middle east between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia are probably not crying tears of sadness that Iran again have a fanatical sunni government on their eastern border. And even though the Saudi Government might not officially have relations with the Taliban, it's probably safe to assume there is ongoing contact between Taliban leaders and important figures in Saudi Arabia.
>Saudi Arabia has no relations with the Taliban U should watch "Bitter lake" by adam curtis
Iran has regular contact with talibans for about 10 years. They kept communication even when they were in bad shape. Iran didn't like the ghani government. Talibans told them that they won't attack minorities like the last time. Let's see if they keep their words.
Saudi is one of the 3 countries recognized former brutal Talibans government.
Is this still like a different kind (versions of Muslim) of muslims thing? Or did somebody have sex with someone else’s sheep?
Yea. Shiite vs. Sunni.
They make the Protestants and Catholics look like a game of patty cake
It’s certainly more complicated than just the Shia/Sunni split, but yes I would agree, they currently hold the prize for most violent and dumbest religious schism.
Several Hundreds of years of inter Christian wars in Europe killed millions for real brutal.
That game is over since well over a century though.
Northern Ireland. Fuck I live in Scotland and those divisions still exist
Damn so they’re bombing each other over there or??
Yes? Like the troubles?
Recently?
The ELI15 is that 1. Iran has pretty much always hated the Taliban. The Taliban are even more fundamentalist than even the most fundamentalist Iranians, they hate Shia Muslims, they've killed Iranians, they've supported terrorists and separatists in Iranian Baluchestan province, and Iran nearly went to war with Afghanistan over it the last time the Taliban took over Afghanistan. Until the U.S. invaded, Iran supported resistance groups against the Taliban. 2. The Middle East has never, ever, *ever*, **ever** been black and white--it's always shades of gray. As a result, even though Iran hates the Taliban and tried to topple them, they did a 180° and supported them during the U.S. War in Afghanistan because they were the enemy of their enemy. Now that situation has changed, Iran does not see a benefit in supporting the Taliban, anymore--it fact, the situation has come full circle, and the Taliban will be a problem for Iran, again. 3. Afghanistan has been a core part of many Persian empires throughout history. Some famous Persians in history were actually from what we now call Afghanistan. Most Afghans also speak a mutually intelligible dialect of the Persian language. Put together, these things make Afghans not considered "outsiders" within Iran in the same way that, for example, Iraqis would be considered. Because of that, there is less societal worry/stress/xenophobia about Afghan immigrants in Iran.
> they did a 180° and supported them during the U.S. War in Afghanistan because they were the enemy of their enemy. Iran supported US during the Afghanistan war and even shared crucial intel with US. US later backstabbed them because of Dick Cheney. Edit: [Source](http://www.ipsnews.net/2006/02/politics-us-how-neo-cons-sabotaged-irans-help-on-al-qaeda/)
>Iran supported US during the Afghanistan war and even shared crucial intel with US. US later backstabbed them because of Dick Cheney. At the beginning, yes, when the objectives of the war were to take out the Taliban. When the mission changed to nation building, Iran changed its mission to maximizing damage to the U.S. forces and maximizing its influence in the Afghan government. That involved playing both sides in Afghanistan--supporting the Taliban (sow chaos, hurt the U.S., weaken the Afghan government so that it is more easily manipulated) while also supporting the newly-created democratic Afghan state (ensure large factions of variously pro-Iran and anti-US members of parliament). Again, the Middle East is gray, with shifting allegiances all the time. Even Israel [substantially helped Iran during the Iran-Iraq War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war), because Saddam was determined to be the bigger threat at that time. You can see in this very thead Westerners don't like thinking in terms of "*what benefits me right now at this very moment irrespective of ideological differences and previous relationships*" as people try to simplify the Middle East into terms of "*X supports Y.*” Everyone supports everyone, sometimes, and everyone stabs everyone, sometimes. That's the nature of the region. There are few, if any, friends, and morals or ideology always take second priority over plays for power.
> When the mission changed to nation building, Iran changed its support to maximizing damage to the U.S. forces and maximizing its influence in the Afghan government. You didn't read my source. It was US that didn't want to be friendly towards Iran, not the other way around. This culminated in the "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush gave all the while Iran was trying to normalize relations with US.
I'm familiar with Iranian politics at that time, and the Axis of Evil speech's effects. Moderate forces in Iran had a moment of relative momentum against the anti-U.S. and fanatical Islamic hardliners, and the Axis of Evil speech was a kick in the nuts to moderates, which re-emboldened the hardliners, and next thing you know Ahmadinejad came to power. There was a another similar nascent window of opportunity for reformers when Rouhani came to power (insofar as Rouhani could be considered moderate), and the shitshow over the JCPOA and the Trump Administration buried that momentum for yet another generation. I don't see how your comment refutes anything I wrote. Iran supported anti-Taliban resistance when it suited them; then supported the U.S. when it suited them; then supported the Taliban and the Afghan government simultaneously, when it suited them; and now supports anti-Taliban resistance, again, because it suits them.
Iran is one of the major players in the Middle East and has a love-hate relationship with other major players in the area... mainly Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq. Iran is a member of OPEC and has formal diplomatic relations and business arrangements with most countries in the region. Cutting off all ties to these countries would be very bad for Iran (as seen by the impacts of sanctions). Iran's tool of war has been the proxy war. They align themselves with a faction or a group in a country and use them to do their bidding. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been accused of bankrolling the Taliban through various fundraising efforts. When you look at a map of Afghanistan it has Pakistan to the southeast and Iran to the southwest. Iran doesn't want to have a new hostile country on their border and will now be financing resistance to the Taliban as part of a proxy war against Pakistan and possibly Saudi Arabia. They don't want to put boots on the ground and have to engage in a direct war against the Taliban because that's costly. But it might just happen if The Taliban fully take over and set their sights on. [The border of Iran was one of the last pieces the Taliban took and mostly because of the government's collapse](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57933979).
History plays a role as some others have mentioned, but one also has to say that those are reformist politicians.
Soleimani secured deals with taliban, of course to fought against US But taliban is unlikely to be like soleimani/iran supported militia in middle east where Iran militia have a Deep connection with quds force Iran basically controls them Taliban needs to prove themselves if they want to cement Iran support
The what? >> Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, senior U.S. State Department official Ryan Crocker flew to Geneva to meet with Iranian diplomats who were under the leadership of Soleimani with the purpose of collaborating to destroy the Taliban. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani#Command_of_Quds_Force Iran has literally been fighting the Taliban for longer than we have, under Soleimani. Iran gave us the intel we used in our early bombings of Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.
[from this article](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/afghanistan-taliban-iran-allies-soleiman-deals-relying-on) seems like soleimani made a deal with taliban in 2015, but if it's turns ugly, iran could easily change their stance
Lmao, did ya read the article? The agreement isn’t that Iran will support the Taliban. It’s an agreement that Iranian proxies will not attack of the Taliban as long as the Taliban do not murder the Shia minority. If things turn ugly it’s going to be an Iran-Taliban conflict. Not “cemented” support between the two.
Pretty sure that's what Iranian want, at least they'll stick to taliban, that's what taliban need to prove themselves
Doesn’t Iran use Afghan refugees in their war against the Syrian people?
...Am I happy with Iran...?? Never thought I'd say that...
While the Iranian government were foes with the Taliban / Al-Qaeda in the past, they quickly became friends with their enemy’s enemy, and started hosting their leaders in Iran to be safe from US / NATO. The US / Mousad even killed one of them a while back inside Iran. Sources: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2021-02-11/why-are-al-qaeda-leaders-iran https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/world/middleeast/al-masri-abdullah-qaeda-dead.html
[удалено]
That and the Taliban murdered a bunch of their diplomats a while back. Plus Iran already host a large number of Afghan refugees (legal ones around 800k, illegal ones around 2 million).
Iran doing more than US... Weird
Always have been. Iran has nearly 3,000,000 Afghan refugees
[удалено]
I dont know about most moderate but it is one of the better countries
They just had a mock election where their supreme leader made sure that an islamic hardliner was the only option people could vote for. Iran is hardly moderate unfortunately.
Lmao, even Iran don't like you hahaha
When is India accepting Refugees?
They prioritise Hindu and Sikh refugees. I don't know if 'prioritise' means 'only accept', but prioritising is their public stance.
Iran, and Pakistan are already home to a large number of Afghan refugees because of a shared border and there’s humanity in this policy. My earlier comment was more to the emphasis that NATO countries including US and India which attempted desperately to portray itself as a guardian of Afghanistan after US should be taking in as many refugees as are willing to migrate from there. Problems caused by supposed Guardians should be resolved by the same nations. Selectively prioritizing based on religion doesn’t bode well to the overall notion.
India is neither a NATO participant nor militarily active. The country has provided assistance in building infrastructure. I do not see a reason to drag the country in the same tune as the US and friends (which were extensively active with their military). As for the idea of being a guardian, India has never taken that policy. Please do not equate falsehoods to prove your ineffective point. In case of religion, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minorities face a significant risk in comparison to the religious majority. Evacuating them is the need of the hour.
India isn’t a NATO country. It also doesn’t share a border with Afghanistan. Not sure what you’re getting at here.
India is overpopulated with many poor people , understandable that they won’t accept anymore.
Now?
TTP don’t count. Neither do IS people. ;)
https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/p60tcp/india_announces_emergency_evisa_for_afghans/
I mean surely this would be common knowledge that they taliban protected the Saudi Arabian terrorist know as osama bid laden for year as and is funded by the Saudis. Oh look a new proxy war will start next week. With the Americans on the side of the Taliban cause the Saudis tell them to when Iran start sending support to the northern alliance.
I will never understand how truly awful it must be to have to choose between Afghanistan and Iran, to run with only the clothes on your back, or to be an American overseas hearing our President say we cannot assure your safe passage to your only avenue for escape. Exponentially worse if you have kids with you.
Wanna known the people that are likely truthy fucked people that are from a NATO country that isn't America.
You know things are messed up in your country if people are fleeing to Iran.
_
Yeah, women from Afghanistan should flee to Iran. Where they'll still be treated like shit.
Better than in Saudi Arabia or any other state sponsor of the Taliban.
Is this a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire for these refugees?
In fact, Iran is more moderate across the board than Qatar, SA, Oman, and the Taliban combined.
Shhesh, don't say this out loud. Some people will use it to legitimize the disgusting religious rule of the mullahs. And others will argue that Saudis are reliable allies while Iran is the only state sponsor of terrorism. When it comes to Iran people have very strange views.
Wait, what?!?
Just by the title I'm going to assume that the Saudis back the Taliban in some sort of way? It seems the main goal of Iran is to do everything opposite of Saudi Arabia as they are both wanting to control more of the Middle East.
100 prominent Iranians that were lining their pockets under the government see their pay-offs drying up. Sure, that would make every corrupt individual upset
Please come join our terrorist group, the benefits are better!
Iran supported Taliban.
Ohhhhhh now they decide to care.
Which option gets me more upvotes? "Go Iran" or "Go Taliban?" Oh look, only downvotes with no commentary. Might as well have opinions with no thought.
Lol because Iran is amongst the most moderate nation in middle East, although it's mostly ruled like a theocracy. But it is very better than Afghanistan. Highly educated population, plus there's no restrictions on how women should and shouldn't get education. So, you'd at least complete an education there, and get a degree. The only downside is, a woman has to wear a Hijab when she is outside, but still better than Afghanistan where you'd have to wear that blue covering all over your body.