Five years on, how will Taliban deal with armed opposition?
Al Jazeera · LC · trust 55/100
play Live Sign up Show navigation menu Navigation menu News Show more news sections Africa Asia US & Canada Latin America Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Explained Sport Opinion Video More Show more sections Features Economy Human Rights Climate Crisis Investigations Interactives In Pictures Science & Technology Podcasts Travel Sponsored Content play Live Click here to search search Sign up News | Explainer Five years on, how will Taliban deal with armed opposition? The United Nations says armed groups opposed to the government remain active.
x whatsapp-stroke copylink google Add Al Jazeera on Google info Afghanistan's Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi attends a farewell ceremony for Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran, July 3, 2026 [Majid Asgaripour/WANA via Reuters] By Hamidullah Mohammad Shah Published On 15 Aug 2026 15 Aug 2026 Saturday marks five years since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, and armed opposition to the movement is no longer confined to a single front or leadership.
Since the fall of the previous government in August 2021, several groups operating under different names and banners have emerged, claiming responsibility for attacks on government forces in a number of provinces. Their presence online has also increased noticeably in recent months.
A key question has emerged: Does the growing number of fronts represent a genuine expansion of armed opposition, or does it reflect fragmentation and divisions among its leaders?
The issue has taken on particular significance following renewed clashes in Badakhshan province, where the Afghanistan Freedom Front fought government forces in the province’s Zebak district.
The United Nations says armed groups opposed to the government remain active, but have been unable to pose a significant challenge to Taliban control of Afghan territory and do not control any fixed geographical areas.
The National Resistance Front was the first major armed formation to emerge after the fall of Kabul. As the previous government collapsed, hundreds of members of the army and security forces travelled to Panjshir province, north of Kabul, bringing weapons and equipment to join the new armed opposition.
The front sought to turn the valley into a centre of resistance against the Taliban, but the Taliban seized the provincial capital and most of the area following a major offensive. Fighting later shifted to limited operations and intermittent clashes in different locations.
Security affairs researcher Karim Amini told Al Jazeera that political and military figures from the former Afghan government sought to establish armed fronts after the US withdrawal as a means of putting pressure on the Taliban, “but they were unable to turn these projects into an influential force on the ground”.
Amini partly attributes that to most of these groups being formed outside Afghanistan, limiting their ability to establish a field presence and build a social base in the country.
Their reliance on armed confrontation with the Taliban also “ran up against an Afghan society exhausted by decades of war and no longer prepared to become involved in another cycle of conflict”, he said.
According to Amini, several opposition forces also failed to understand the changes Afghan society had undergone after four decades of conflict. They treated armed opposition as a political and military legacy that could simply be revived from abroad, rather than beginning with the priorities of Afghans and their vision for the country’s future.
Afghan society is tired of war, he said, and many of these groups have therefore failed to find the local environment needed to establish a lasting presence.
“An opposition that does not emerge from Afghan realities and the needs of the people will struggle to establish a foothold inside the country, regardless of the experience or military leadership it possesses abroad,” Amini said.
The challenge facing these groups, he added, is not merely their ability to carry out sporadic attacks, but whether they can regain domestic trust, build a social base and present a convincing political project – conditions he considers more important than the proliferation of banners or statements claiming responsibility for attacks.
Recent fighting in northern Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province has revived debate about the future of the armed opposition.
In July, the Afghanistan Freedom Front said it attacked Taliban positions in Zebak district, seized military positions and inflicted losses on the movement.
The Taliban, for its part, said it repelled the attack and killed a number of the assailants, while the front said it had beaten back counterattacks. The clashes continued for several days – a notable development compared with the opposition’s usual pattern of operations – before the intensity of the fighting subsided.
Afghan security affairs researcher Abdul Karim Khan told Al Jazeera that the Zebak fighting was significant because it tested the ability of anti-Taliban groups to move beyond hit-and-run operations towards longer confrontations.
But he said it could not be considered a strategic shift unless similar fighting was seen elsewhere.
“The real measure is not controlling a position for a few hours or days, but the ability to hold it, secure supply lines, expand the network of fighters and force the Taliban to alter its military deployments on a sustained basis,” Khan said.
Away from the battlefield, the opposition landscape appears increasingly crowded.
Alongside the National Resistance Front and the Afghanistan Freedom Front, groups have emerged under names including the Homeland Army, the Freedom and Justice Movement, the United Front of Afghanistan, the Green Movement, the National Independence Front, the Republican Front, the People’s Democratic Front, the National Guard Movement, the National Revolutionary Front of Afghanistan, the Freedom and Democracy Front and the National Front of Liberators,…
Read the original at Al Jazeera →
Open in TruthVane →