Taliban’s Embassy Demand in Washington: A Bold Step Toward Legitimacy or a Risky Gamble?
Experts raise alarm over terror links as advocates push for dialogue despite human rights challenges
[Islamabad] The Afghan Taliban urged the United States to transfer control of the Afghan Embassy in Washington to their administration.
The significant demand was articulated by Zabiullah Mujahid, the spokesperson for Afghanistan’s interim government, during an interview with Afghan National Television on Sunday. The Taliban’s bold “diplomatic overture” reflects Kabul’s ongoing efforts to secure formal recognition from the United States, a key player in global diplomacy.
Mujahid, during the interview, citing direct engagement with the United States, said, “We maintain periodic contact with the US. As you saw recently, an American representative visited Kabul, and similarly, when our representatives travel to Qatar or other destinations, they meet with US officials.”
“We have requested official recognition from them and have also raised the issue of transferring the Afghan Embassy in the United States to us. Although we have not received a positive response, the people of Afghanistan want their rights,” he added.
Mujahid underlined, “Afghanistan has no disputes with any country and aims to maintain good relations with all nations. Russia recognized Afghanistan’s intentions, took the initiative, and seized the opportunity. We urge other countries to take similar bold steps and establish relations with Afghanistan.”
The Afghan Embassy in Washington, which has been in a state of limbo since the collapse of the US-backed Ashraf Ghani-led government, represents a symbolic and practical link to the international community.
By gaining control of the embassy, the Taliban aims to assert its authority as Afghanistan’s legitimate government and facilitate diplomatic interactions with the United States and other nations.
Mujahid’s acknowledgment that the US has not yet provided a “positive response” to this request emphasizes the challenges the Taliban faces in overcoming international skepticism regarding its governance and human rights record.
The Taliban seeks to break its diplomatic isolation and establish itself as a legitimate actor on the global stage. The recent prisoner exchange between Kabul and Washington, mentioned by Mujahid, is a notable example of pragmatic cooperation between the two sides.
Afghanistan’s security environment remains precarious, with militant groups such as ISIS-Khorasan (IS-K) and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) posing significant threats. Enhanced US-Afghan cooperation could strengthen counterterrorism efforts, enabling better coordination to curb cross-border violence and dismantle extremist networks operating in the region.
The Taliban’s willingness to engage with the US on security issues could also signal a sensible approach to governance, prioritizing stability over ideological rigidity.
Afghanistan’s relations with its neighbors — particularly Pakistan, Iran, and Central Asian states — have been strained by issues such as contested border disputes, water rights, and refugee movements. By fostering dialogue through international recognition, the Taliban could reduce friction with these countries and promote regional stability.
The United States has yet to take an official position on recognizing the Taliban-led government, reflecting broader concerns about the group’s governance practices, particularly its restrictions on women’s rights and education.
The international community, including the US, has tied recognition to the Taliban’s adherence to commitments on human rights, governance, and counterterrorism. The lack of a positive response to the embassy transfer request suggests that Washington remains cautious, likely awaiting tangible progress on these fronts.
Since seizing power in August 2021, the Taliban has imposed sweeping restrictions on women’s rights, rolling back two decades of progress. Women and girls have been barred from secondary and higher education, effectively excluding them from formal learning beyond the sixth grade.
Female employment in most government offices and many private sectors has been curtailed, with only limited exceptions in health and primary education. Strict dress codes have been enforced, and women’s freedom of movement has been severely restricted, requiring a male guardian (mahram) for long-distance travel. Public protests by women demanding their rights have been met with intimidation, harassment, and arbitrary detention.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
These policies, described by human rights groups as a form of “gender apartheid,” have not only undermined the basic dignity and autonomy of Afghan women but have also deepened the country’s humanitarian and economic crises by excluding half the population from public life.
However, The Media Line spoke to some global experts to evaluate the situation.
Turning over the embassy in DC will essentially allow an al-Qaida and Taliban command center to open just miles from the Pentagon
Adrian Calamel, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Arabian Peninsula Institute and an expert on global security affairs, told The Media Line that “the Trump administration needs to understand that turning over the embassy in DC will essentially allow an al-Qaida and Taliban command center to open just miles from the Pentagon.”
There is no such thing as diplomacy with the Taliban in the traditional sense; instead, it is used as a tool against Western countries
He noted that “there is no such thing as diplomacy with the Taliban in the traditional sense; instead, it is used as a tool against Western countries, and therefore an embassy should never be allowed in Washington.”
Calamel underlined the notion that the Taliban can be a counterterrorism partner is a ruse sold to the world after Kabul fell. He added that they coordinate with TTP, while ISIS-K acts as a junior partner, offering plausible deniability. He stressed that the Taliban’s narrative — that ISIS-K remains the greatest threat to the world and that they possess the capability to deal with it effectively — is, in reality, an attempt to divert global attention from the expanding al-Qaida network in the country and the presence of Osama bin Laden’s sons.
Calamel warned that “the US would legitimize a state sponsor of terror running a successful propaganda campaign that portrays itself as a fragile nation under Taliban rule with minor human rights abuses framed as cultural differences, and that such a move would weaken advocacy while signaling support for serial abusers over women’s rights and basic decency,” he concluded.
Control of an embassy usually follows recognition of a government
Dr. Abdul Naim Asas, who focuses on Afghanistan-related affairs and is the director of the Group for the Study and Research on Institutions and Strategic Systems (GERISS), told The Media Line that “control of an embassy usually follows recognition of a government.”
Handing over the embassy or recognizing the Taliban would be a strategic shock — offering potential gains against ISIS-K and on border risks, but carrying high political costs
Asas emphasized that “handing over the embassy or recognizing the Taliban would be a strategic shock — offering potential gains against ISIS-K and on border risks, but carrying high political costs without a strict, enforceable framework.”
Asas noted that “the US could keep nonrecognition but use a caretaker arrangement, give limited recognition for consular work, or fully recognize it.” He underlined that “without clear rights concessions within months, such a move would be viewed as recognition without reciprocity.”
According to Asas, a US shift would pressure NATO and EU partners — some aligning, others resisting without progress on women’s education and civic freedoms — and would intensify U.N. credential debates. He advised that Washington should proceed gradually, set public benchmarks on education and militancy, ensure independent verification, and include snapback clauses to protect both security and dignity.
He further observed that Pakistan would welcome leverage on border management but fears being sidelined, which would make action against the TTP its price. Asas added that some Taliban leaders remain tied to the TTP, so US engagement with incentives and monitoring could help, but full compliance is unlikely without a trilateral mechanism with measurable targets.
Ali Maisam Nazary, head of foreign relations for the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, told The Media Line that the consequences of handing over the embassy to the Taliban group will have grave costs.
He emphasized that the Taliban must not be pacified to this extent, noting that such concessions haven’t changed the group’s behavior in the last four years. He warned that it will normalize the Taliban and strengthen other terrorist groups under the Taliban’s protection, as well as embolden the Taliban to further their agenda to target Afghanistan’s people, especially women.
Nazary stressed that any country that assists the Taliban and builds a relationship will indirectly empower other militant groups — including TTP, IS-KP, and al-Qaida — within Afghanistan. However, he expressed optimism that the Trump administration, based on its messaging, will adopt a better and more realistic policy toward the Taliban, one that will isolate and weaken them instead of appeasing them as others do.
The handover of the Afghan Embassy in Washington to Kabul’s rightful representatives is not just symbolic — it would lay the foundation for meaningful diplomacy after years of tension and misunderstanding
Najeeb Ullah Zadran is a Kabul-based political analyst. He, unlike other analysts, presented a distinct viewpoint and told The Media Line, “The handover of the Afghan Embassy in Washington to Kabul’s rightful representatives is not just symbolic — it would lay the foundation for meaningful diplomacy after years of tension and misunderstanding.”
Zadran noted that “by opening direct channels between two governments with shared interests, from countering ISIS-K to ensuring regional security, this step could replace the slow, mistrust-fueled exchanges through intermediaries with more efficient and constructive dialogue.”
While critics see danger, in truth, the real danger is isolation
He underlined that “while critics see danger, in truth, the real danger is isolation. Limited recognition,” he stressed, “could spur economic cooperation, ease sanctions, attract investment, and signal that Washington is ready for pragmatic engagement instead of a policy that harms ordinary Afghans.”
Moreover, Zadran emphasized that unity matters. For too long, so-called “alternative Afghan voices” abroad have claimed to speak for the nation, but in reality, they represent no one but themselves. He argued that “handing over the embassy would ensure that Afghanistan speaks with one voice in international forums, strengthening its position on trade, aid, and security.”
