Zalmay Khalilzad’s Dark Reflection in History’s Mirror

Kokcha News Agency: Zalmay Khalilzad’s name is forever linked to one of Afghanistan’s darkest chapters. As the U.S. Special Representative, he repeatedly collaborated with Pakistan’s ISI to create the conditions for negotiations in Doha, ultimately leading to a pact that removed the Taliban from international isolation and granted them political legitimacy. The result was the collapse of Afghanistan’s so-called republic and the Taliban’s resurgence.

Now, Khalilzad, through his official X account, accuses the International Media of being influenced by Pakistan’s ISI. Ironically, many ordinary Afghans know that the funding of these media outlets is Saudi-sourced, not Pakistani, raising questions about Khalilzad’s awareness. The truth is, his public accusations are likely an attempt to divert attention from his own role—namely, that he was the primary actor who enabled Taliban’s political rise and handed power over to them.

This posture reveals a deliberate effort to silence critics and escape responsibility. Khalilzad’s policies in Afghanistan are widely regarded as a failure: over three trillion dollars spent, thousands killed and wounded, and yet the power ended up in the hands of the very group the U.S. fought for twenty years. Statistically, he faces the threat of being held accountable as the “architect of Afghanistan’s failure,” a fact that has made him irritable and combative.

But Khalilzad’s failure isn’t just political; it’s deeply ethnic. He belongs to the Pashtun-Gulzai tribe, the same root origin as many Taliban leaders. Many believe his actions were consciously aimed at restoring power to his ethnic group, reminiscent of past Pashtun/Afghan dynasties like Mirwais Hotak or Ahmad Shah Durrani. Whether he intends it or not, history will remember him as the figure who led Afghanistan into ruin.

This ethnic angle is further evidenced by his recent contacts with Pashtuns and Afghans, urging them not to participate in a forthcoming Islamabad conference—revealing how he still manipulates tribal networks for personal and political goals instead of national interests.

The Afghan International channel itself is not innocent. Its approach of calling all Afghans “Afghan” disregards that over 75% of the population do not identify as Pashtun or Afghan, deepening ethnic divides rather than fostering unity. Yet, these criticisms are also part of Khalilzad’s effort to shift blame and restore his image.

His stance even contradicts U.S. policy. While Washington improves relations with Pakistan, Khalilzad attacks Pakistan and the ISI, showing he seems more driven by personal legacy than U.S. diplomatic strategy. Now caught between three pressures—the historical record, potential U.S. repercussions, and Afghan public opinion—Khalilzad stands condemned for enabling the Taliban’s rise and betraying Afghanistan’s sovereignty.

Ultimately, no matter how much Khalilzad blames others or tries to rewrite history, the stain of having handed Afghanistan to the Taliban will forever tarnish his legacy. His name will be remembered as the face behind Afghanistan’s tragic downfall.

Author: Kazem Homayoun