A most interesting interview by @Shamshadnetwork with TB spox Mujahid @Zabehulah_M33 (ZM)

Some points:

1. ZM admits that the agreement mentions that in order to facilitate a political settlement, violence will not be left at the 'level' it was prior to the agreement (8:30) https://twitter.com/SaeedKhosty/status/1336133325128413185
Although he claims the group has fulfilled this obligation.

This obligation could be in secret annexes or verbal.

Asked about reported civilian deaths, he claims that no instances of direct targeting of civilians although indirectly they can be affected (by window shatter etc)
2. When told that some actors such as Y Qanuni state TB should be given 40% share in government, he dismisses any power sharing based on ethnicity or party allegiance.

He does however, mock that a 'great movement that made such sacrifices' should be given 40% (11:30).
Implication being, they definitely don't expect only a minority share.

Again, speculative only but speaks assumption that TB expecting to be majority in new framework and give smaller positions to other actors.
3. When asked about Republic versus Emirate, he doesn't out of hand reject Republicanism but states that their ultimate demand is Islamic sovereignty and Islam is well defined. If we want Islam then all issues are provided in religious texts. (15-18)
Implication is that vague references wouldn't be accepted & they expect detailed rulings on provisions.

Also defends possibility of return of Emirate, citing UAE, as existing model.

Does not address UN resolution (which is presumably referenced) in the procedural framework.
4. Shows a level of opposition to elections, that caught me off guard. States all Jihadist leaders (Sayyaf, Hekmatyar et al) have lost in elections. Implication is that this system disadvantages religious actors.

This issue was unfortunately not explored further by host.
States that while elections will be discussed in upcoming phases, but we shouldn't adopt foreign ideas and instead create a system that is based on values of Afghanistan.

While it is not an outright rejection, it comes very close.(19-20)
5. ZM says even if a 'single soldier' stays, then this is still foreign occupation and the war will continue (23).

He doesn't think US will insist on remaining in a weak position (as contrasted with when they had strong presence) & if boils down to fighting, the US will suffer
Definitely posturing I would say.

In fact interview generally restates long standing TB positions and usually qualifies that issues are subject to debate in intra-AFG talks.

Still, there are hints of likely direction + TB redlines. https://twitter.com/Hasbeenhere00/status/1336166191975555073?s=19
You can follow @Afghan_Policy.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.