THREAD: As Afghans, diplomats & observers try to interpret initial Biden team signals on how it will approach peace process ... seems worth reflecting on two big bits of news from late last week:

(US NSA Sullivan's call w/ NSA Mohib)
(Keeping Zal as envoy, for now)

New US natl security adviser promised "review" of US-Taliban deal, giving hope to its many critics.

Yet sources say Khalilzad, architect of that agreement, will remain in place (for now).

So... is US signalling change or continuity with Zal's approach? /2

Contradictory signals suggest one thing above all: Biden team has still not likely settled on the final direction of its Afghanistan policy.

Announcing a review suggests some time before major decisions are made (as @CrisisGroup recently predicted). /3
https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/b165-what-future-afghan-peace-talks-under-biden-administration

Sullivan's talk with NSA Mohib is remarkable break from past two years.
After public remarks disparaging Khalilzad, Mohib was persona non grata with US officials for most of 2019, and still on thin ice in 2020.

The call itself is something of a re-set. /4 https://tolonews.com/afghanistan-169486

But a careful reading of US notes from that call hint how preliminary the Americans' policymaking process may still be.

"Review" of US-Taliban deal is a relatively safe move, and a far cry from deciding to "re-set" that deal in any significant way. /5 https://twitter.com/jseldin/status/1352756016451112960

There are a few possibilities underlying Biden team's reasons for keeping Khalilzad in his post (well outlined by @asfandyarmir) ... but in context with Sullivan's call, the most likely may simply be that the US' final policy is yet to be determined. /end https://twitter.com/asfandyarmir/status/1352854063814070272?s=20