our taliban splinter groups. that is not clear. what is clear is that iran had relations with both the government of donnie -- ghani and that taliban. in july, there was a meeting of representatives, and a day after the taliban took control of kabul, they described the withdrawal as a military failure, adding that the withdrawal must be to restore security and durable peace in afghanistan. he was quoted as saying that a ran backs efforts -- iran backs efforts to restore security in afghanistan adding that as a neighboring nation, iran invites all groups to reach a national agreement. they told countries in the region not to worry, some countries such as iran are concerned. a ran once the taliban -- iran wants the taliban to be part of the future of afghanistan, but not the whole future. now the taliban has seized control of all of the countries strategic province, and we know there's been animosity between shiite and sunnis and the taliban for years, especially during the first reign of the taliban in afghanistan

— the taliban? books, there's always" — the taliban? books, there's always... it's _ the taliban?now the way i'm treated is not the way another journalist, particularly a local journalist, might be treated. when you look at the professionalism more savvy of the taliban, you have to understand it in its proper context, and it is largely transactional. they hope to get something out of that. the money or from what we see is pretty thin. people to carry out theirjobs as pretty thin. people to carry out their jobs as journalists. on the other hand, they are firing at protesters, they're beating journalist, so just because you talk the talk, if you don't walk the walk, we will cover that.— will cover that. help me understand _ will cover that. help me understand your - will cover that. help me - understand your calculations on these issues. you are part of these issues. you are part of the first international team in myanmar in february after the military coup there. that would've only been possible with the military�*s acquiescence. what are your calculations when deciding to work wit

, even if they are anti-taliban, so iran has to cement a relationship with the taliban. from the national interest perspective [indiscernible] -- and the second to have a deeper diplomatic strategy relationship with the taliban in order to -- and that would be what iran has to do. as i mentioned, there are other elements which are intervening right now, the regional power element, the recent chinese investment with iran, all of these elements i see that iran is in the process, from these moving's from the street players, i analyze that it seems that iran's foreign policy in the region be based on cooperation with china and russia and the policy that they used to have, and that makes sense, especially with another dominant version. iran does need more allies. pakistan is more closer to the taliban than iran, so iran itself in the current situation. it makes a lot of sense for iran to have a close relationship with them. we will have to wait and see. >> thank you so much. it was very comprehensive, and i'm sure there's a great deal to discuss, and mustafa will take you in

the afghan people want that, and be taliban, now that they are in power -- they will hold the talibanountable. this is an indication o what is important for the taliban in the future. they need to realize the reality of the society and act accordingly. host: thank you. i appreciate your insight. thank you for watching the. you can see the program at any time by visiting our website aljazeera.com. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. for us and the entire team into a hawk, goodbye for now -- in doha, goodbye for now. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - hey, i'malerie je. coming up on reel south . 1964, aand of bes hounds tveled soh. [man] i meanmississii, for younwhe ople who might' come om w englanor califnia wareally like a w wod. you codn't imanet. - alerie] eir one goal, to sff o early gends of the ssissippi ues. - [wom] they h the rords, they h the recding buthere wastill so muche didn'tnow. - an] if there wasny chance ofhese peoe still beg ale, it wasorth whaver efrt we hato put in toet them front of a micphone again. ♪ freightrain, frght ain

and why did taliban emerge? a semblance of rule of law which did not exist before. previously — this is before taliban took over — every 50 miles, there was a checkpoint, there was a warlord who would then take money, and so it was a fractured afghanistan after the soviets left. so, taliban gave people a semblance of rule of law, and that's why they prevailed in afghanistan. but taliban came out of nowhere at that time — i'm talking about 96. but now, they also came out of nowhere, and many of the educated people, the more advanced people of afghanistan are leaving in their thousands because they're terrified of the organisation which you actually seem to approve of. john, that's not true. first of all, you must understand that afghanistan is a history. afghanistan has resisted invaders throughout their history, and from people like us from 2008 onwards, i went specifically to the think tanks, i metjoe biden, i met john kerry, the senator at the time, and i explained to them there would not be a military solutio

the taliban have...l, what we see right now is the united states has cut off all of afghanistan's dollar reserves. that's billions and billions of us dollars. we see the imf has also, for the moment, suspended all economic assistance to afghanistan. we see an economy that, until two weeks ago, was 40% reliant on international economic aid and assistance. that's all gone. you'd think if the taliban were serious about trying to get some of those economic lifelines restored, they might be doing more to reach out in terms of guaranteeing rights, guaranteeing political pluralism. we're not seeing it. yeah. and that's what we are trying to get them to understand, the severity of the economy of the country, the enormity of the responsibility on their shoulders, and they must... time should be of the essence, enough urgency to them and that a political settlement, absolutely something that the economy of the future of this country will depend upon. and we hope they realise the enormity of the responsibility that

with the taliban back in power. -- shia tension with the taliban back in power. the threats relating to the taliban takeover and the emergent of anti-iran sentiment, it is something that is a major threat moving forward, going forward. it goes back to the past where taliban behavior in the 1990's with the shieh -- shia -- and also the anti-iran sentiment in afghanistan. it also goes back to 1990's where the relationship of iran and the taliban, there was tension in the relationship and in 1998, [indiscernible] so tele van -- the taliban relationship has been complicated in the past, but recently, the political processes come of that some call the peace processes, during these years iran has demonstrated support to the taliban. i think that strategy is moot because after one year of the talks, and especially -- tehran believe that the taliban would be the next power order. [indiscernible] -- around the economic asset that iran has. the tension in afghanistan -- the taliban has demonstrated flexibility and expressed flexibility in terms of [indiscernible] , but one

_ taliban government. what about the land borders? there - taliban government.here have already been concerns from neighbouring countries about the plight of refugees. which countries do you think will be willing to accept and help out, and which ones are saying they don't want this situation on their doorsteps? fist don't want this situation on their doorsteps?— don't want this situation on their doorstes? �* ., their doorsteps? at the moment, their doorsteps? at the moment, the have their doorsteps? at the moment, they have 1-6 _ their doorsteps? at the moment, they have 1.6 million _ their doorsteps? at the moment, they have 1.6 million afghan - they have 1.6 million afghan refugees already in the country. i think since 2001, they have set up the fence along the borders. it's been very difficult for those. at the moment, the entry into pakistan is difficult. the border in china is much smaller. we have to wait and see. ., , ,., smaller. we have to wait and see. ., , ., ~ i. smaller. we have to wait and see. ., ., ~ ., see. professor, thank you for “oininu see.

in terms of that taliban cabinet. it's all taliban. some observers at the top and say it's all only old taliban. it's hard line taliban . the ones in the key positions are the ones that were fighting rather than the ones that would go see a negotiating. and how, for example, miller brother, who was the main negotiator, has ended up as the deputy prime minister. yet he was the most prominent figure in the negotiations. do you see this is a hard line taliban cabinet? it's a, it's a, it's a compromise in politics to make compromises. you have to accommodate all points of view. and both sides have been dick and in, in terms of the taliban. now as you know, they've been all sorts of reports and we haven't been able to confirm them. so i'd like your view on it of rouse division in the tell about even angry arouse with a threat of violence. let me quote you something that was said by the un secretary general. recently at the beginning of the p 5 meeting, the permanent members of the security council, he said afghanistan is unpredictable. we s

and taliban controlled the supply lines. this time they are completely surrounded by taliban.ever -- the traditional like resistance of the people in panjshir will make it a hard fight. brent: of course, the world looking at afghanistan today know with u.s. military gone. what are you seeing in the capital of kabul, are the streets -- on the streets? are you seeing as many women and girls as you would have seen six months ago? >> i was today on the street. streets were completely normal but they are markedly fewer women and girls on the street. it does notmean that there are none. it should be noted that so far the taliban have not banned women to the house of they -- as they have done during the first regime. so far women are wary to go out, because they do not know what might happen. and this is of course a huge problem. but how this will exactly play out and what will exactly be announced remains to be seen. brent: the latest tonight from kabul. as always, thank you. joining me now is the executive director of the organization for policy research and development studies, a

and the taliban is claiming _ now. and the taliban is claiming it _ now.iban is claiming it will - now. and the taliban is claiming it will be - now. and the taliban is claiming it will be able | now. and the taliban is i claiming it will be able to contain any sort of terrorist threat that may emerge from within the country, as well as keeping control of all of these different factions. find keeping control of all of these different factions.— different factions. and this will be a — different factions. and this will be a very _ different factions. and this will be a very important. different factions. and this. will be a very important test for the taliban a, especially from perspective i have for counterterrorism and this is one of those things that they said in the 2020 agreement with the donald trump administration that they will try their best or make the effort to ensure that afghanistan does not become a launching pad for attacks against the west or the region, but it is not clear whether or not they have the capability, the resources to follow up o

pakistan's support for the taliban _ supported the taliban.the taliban in - supported the taliban. pakistan's support for the taliban in the - supported the taliban. pakistan's i support for the taliban in the 1990s was crucial for the taliban, it was part of pakistan's old strategy of a friendly government on its western border, and put 2001, pakistan's centuries for the group have really played a crucial role in the group being able to regroup and launch its insurgency —— post—2001, pakistan �*s sanctuaries. the taliban positive families live in —— taliban's families live in pakistan. there were some recognition and encouragement of that from the pakistani government as well, and so there is anger at that coming from kabul and coming from various afghans all over the country, and the recent visit has inflamed tensions. there is also a fair bit of propaganda and fake news that inflames tensions, but the basic case of pakistan's support for the taliban is something that afghans feel very strongly about, thatis afghans feel very strongly about,

there were no militant taliban. there were no militant taliban in pakistan.ing the soviets, they called pakistan collaborators and targeted us. so, this country took the greatest amount of suffering by being part of the coalition. so, the reason why the coalition. so, the reason why the taliban are back in power is not because of pakistan. if you want to know the real reason why they're backin know the real reason why they're back in power, all you have to do is an analysis. why did 300,000 well—equipped afghan army give up without a fight to 65, 70,000 lightly armed militia? if you go into the details, which we have, thatis into the details, which we have, that is the reason why the taliban are back in power. it's not because of pakistan. are back in power. it's not because of pakistan-— are back in power. it's not because of pakistan. pakistan has one really im ortant of pakistan. pakistan has one really important lever _ of pakistan. pakistan has one really important lever that _ of pakistan. pakistan has one really important lever that it _ of pakistan. p

we should convey our expectations to the taliban. they should be judged not by their words, but by their action. this was just the 1st of a series of discussions that property is having with its allies. with regards to a dentist on the country for a minister, we'll be meeting with the dodge for a minister in less than 24 hours. and there are reports that you case dominic rob will also be in the hot some point this week. cutter continues to be at the forefront when it comes to the afghan file. and it seems that it has won the trust of international, of the international community, particularly with the success of helping out in that huge evacuation effort that took place over the past 10 days. meanwhile, the italian military has flown nearly 5000 afghans to italy since the taliban took over. many of the refugees still under quarantine, while the process to resettlement adam rainy, visited the country's biggest refugee camp african evacuees, and of its on it. at this camp an hour outside of rome, more than a 1000 african refugees are s

but pakistan also has a long history with the taliban.s often been accused of secretly supporting their insurgency. pakistan has always denied that. but it acknowledges having some leverage. this visit is really about discussions, the creation of a new government in afghanistan, it has been nearly three weeks since taliban took over kabul and have yet to establish one. some suggest it is because of internal rivalries within the group. whatever the cause, it's prolonging this period of deep uncertainty about the future that many afghans are facing. returning to the situation in panjshir, that's the province just to the north of kabul, it's the one place yet to be fully captured by the taliban. we have conflicting reports coming out of there, but the taliban seem to be saying that they have made some advances, fighters calling themselves the resistance are yet to be defeated, however. in the past few minutes they have issues a statement warning of a potential humanitarian crisis developing and panjshir there. secunder kermani in kabul. i as

the taliban made abundantly _ the taliban? the taliban made abundantly clear _ the taliban?s. and so that was it exactly the choice that president biden face put up whether to go forward with the agreement and the commitments that his predecessor had made in terms of withdrawing all forces by may one or returned to war with the taliban and escalate, not end the war. as you know what the president to do was to take some risk in extending past may one the time we were used to actually withdraw our forces so that we could do it in the safest and most orderly way possible. we extended the deadline to september. balsa way possible. we extended the deadline to september. also we know that there was — deadline to september. also we know that there was a _ deadline to september. also we know that there was a point _ deadline to september. also we know that there was a point recently - deadline to september. also we know that there was a point recently in - that there was a point recently in the government hardliners, and the new taliban group, telegrams commitment to share power wit

from falling to the taliban? >> no. >> would double that number have been enough? do we know how big our force would have gotten? >> i think it was the assessment of our leaders not to put a number on it, but significant additional u.s. forces would have been required both to protect ourselves and to prevent the onslaught from the taliban. >> was it a decision between leaving and the status quo. this was a decision between a significant commitment of new u.s. resources to the fight or the continuation of plans. >> correct. >> let's talk about the last month. so once the afghan government and military disintegrate all at once, it seems to be there would be panic amongst the afghan people. could it be expected that troops and diplomats on the ground would have been able to prevent this panic? >> no. >> were 2500 or 5,000 troops to stop the afghan people from rushing to the airport and created this security nightmare, but was there any way for the limited number of personnel that were there to prevent individuals fr

but the trump administration gave 5000 of the taliban's top fighters back to the taliban.what did we get for that, other than empty promises that were broken? >> congressman, the deal that the previous administration struck involved, as you rightly said, committing to remove all u.s. forces from afghanistan by may 1st of this year. and in addition, as that deal was being negotiated and then putting into effect, pressing the afghan government to release these 5000 prisoners, many of whom went back to the battlefield. and at the same time, in return, getting from the taliban few commitment -- one, not to attack our forces or alight and partners are forces during the time of the agreement from the time it was reached until may 1st when we were supposed to pull out all of our forces, as well as not to go into major cities, and to take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al-qaeda or any other [inaudible] . >> object [inaudible] . >> one more question. your criticized for not getting our weapons out. our weapons were given to the afghan military, they were all

the so-called a and approve taliban -- new and improved taliban. the active prime minister, one of the taliban's founding leaders. he is also sanctioned by the united nations and sheltered osama bin laden for years. the infamous members of the taliban five released from guantanamo under the obama administration also all hold senior positions in the new government. finally, the worst. the acting interior minister. he is responsible for overseeing policing and counterterrorism. also wanted by the fbi. he is the head of the network with close ties to al qaeda. it is currently sanctioned by the united states. most of the new and improved taliban leaders hold the same or similar position they held prior to 9/11. we are now at the mercy of the taliban's reign of terror. all while a dark veil of sharia law covers afghanistan. freedoms are troops helped secure for afghan women and girls have been stripped away in a matter of weeks. this, in my judgment, is not only disgraceful, it also dishonors those who served our nation so bravely. mr. secretary, the am

kathy: in the valley north of the city, there is an actual anti-taliban movement, anti-taliban fight going on. i do not know you can call it a movement at this point, but it is a group that is led by the son of one of the warlords between 1992 and 1996 that was part of the destruction of kabul when they were fighting among themselves. he was lionized as an anti-taliban fighter. after being killed in asuicide bombing. so his son now is leading the charge, but it is indicative to the one area. it is certainly very strong. within that area they are you fighting. the others, in terms of the islamic state, that is a militant terrorist group that is a operating both in pakistan and afghanistan and includes different groups. i in terms of an anti-taliban movement or anti-taliban fight, i think that, right now, from what we can tell here, is that it is restricted at this point to within that area. that lisa saad, you are quoted : saying "we know what the taliban stands for." and to be honest you are "surprised we are still up and running." could you talk more about what you meant when you sa

the taliban made it clear.o you take any responsibility for this disastrous withdrawal, or do you still want to call it a success? >> look, congresswoman, i'm responsible for the decisions i make and responsible for the actions of the state department. i'm responsible for looking at any lessons to be taken from those decisions and actions and i'm also responsible for being accountable for those decisions. if you let me finish -- >> [indiscernible] >> the way am accountable is doing exactly what i'm doing today. to you and through you to the american people, hold myself accountable. we made the right decision in ending america's longest war. we made that right decision in not sending a third generation of americans to fight and die and afghanistan. we did the right thing by the citizens working feverishly to get them all out and buy 100 and 25,000 afghans to bring them to safety and now we are working to do the right thing to hold the taliban into the expectations of the international community to make sure that

some, some can you don't trust the taliban? others are prepared to give him a chance this time round. i mean, what about women? you worked in say in jobs in hospitals and so on. do you think that they'll be happy to go back to those jobs if, even if it's about and do decide that they can have those roles was ever a good woman, can go back to work as a doctor was a teacher, but i think we need a woman and a different government because we had the 4 women in the company to be had the deputy minister to put up the government everywhere. this is that i took woman and nobody can. but once again, ignore exclude women from different period because on it has turned out. busy and your patience 6 or no, but the progress shouldn't be violated and but as we know, that's not willing to bring them back to a minister position. i think this is the time it should be. think about if you really want to get the crust and support of the people they have to do because women of what kind of son and this struggle, i don't think women will be alone. an

. -- taliban. -- taliban. they need to read afghanistan's history. - -- taliban. they need to read afghanistan's history. it - -- taliban. they need to read afghanistan's history. it is - -- taliban. they need to read i afghanistan's history. it is made -- taliban. they need to read - afghanistan's history. it is made up of ethnic minorities. one force cannot dominate the country. what the taliban are doing today isn't going to bring peace and stability. they've deepened social cleavages and so much in our society that is irreversible, and we will see the negative impact inside afghanistan in the years to come. the taliban, with their narrative of dominance, will never rule afghanistan. this isn't the approach to bring peace and stability. isn't the approach to bring peace and stability-— isn't the approach to bring peace and stability. does that mean the resistance in _ and stability. does that mean the resistance in the _ and stability. does that mean the resistance in the panjshir- and stability

he said he had been in touch with the taliban about this issue and that the taliban repeated their pledgelow people with the right documents to leave. this is going to be a point of contention going forward. when the airport in kabul is reopened, that is a real priority, and they are working hard on that. laura: is this how the u.s. can now influence afghanistan, via now i like tar -- like qatar? >> the qatari's are an important intermediary. they have a good relatnship with the u.s. and have an office in doha which they have had for several years. no country did more, mr. blinken said, to help with the evacuation. that is where americans will continue to keep the pathway to afghanistan open, keep working to get allies t of the country. that will be the focus more than trying to use cutter to -- qatar to shape the situation in afghanistan at the moment. laura: now that the u.s. and its allies have left afghanistan, the role of the united nations has become crucial. the international organization is still operating there, and the taliban is relying on the u.n. for much needed humanitarian

. >> chiefs about to keep an eye on the taliban -- chiefs of bow -- chiefs vow to keep and i on the taliban. you're watching al jazeera live from london. also coming up, days after dozens of children were released in nigeria, 73 students are kid not in a new school attack. the strictest antiabortion law in the u.s. comes into boards in texas, banning the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy. and the red carpet returns. hollywood emerges from lockdown at the venice film festival. we begin the program in afghanistan where the taliban are now in charge of a country in crisis. days after the last u.s. soldier departed, ending 20 years of war. it is expected to form a government over the coming days, but there's no word yet on the safe evacuation of thousands of people who still want to leave. all this as food stocks could run out in just a month and the country lacks cash to buy basic supplies. the united nations warns of a humanitarian catastrophe with one in three after ends facing hunger. >> as i speak to you today, more than half of the afghan children do not know if they will have a meal

whereas, the taliban were professional.etter relationship towards the taliban _ than the previous team. despite the haqqani network had killed some of your staff? yes, absolutely. it's a different neighbourhood. we have different benchmarks and standards in terms - of dealing with people. but for us, we were always committed editorially- to a peace deal — we felt every conflict has ended _ with a negotiation. if you look at afghanistan's recent history, we had 40. odd years of fighting. given the taliban's know—how, is there a risk it's using you? absolutely. just like you wouldl be using us as well. as a sort of a benchmark in terms of how the - taliban are behaving. we are a bit like the canaryl in the coal mine, and i think a lot of western audiences are looking at us in termsl of how we survive, and that would be a clear indicationl as to how others would survive, civil society and so forth. - but when you run those stories which could be seen as being negative to the taliban, are they on the phone saying to drop this?

despite all the claims that this was taliban 2.0, the taliban have changed my the taliban have learned- changed, the taliban how learned from their mistakes. they are announcing the islamic emirate of afghanistan, saying sharia law has to be enforced and announcing the faithful. this will be sending shockwaves to central asian countries. ey havell along been opposed to such an idea. they have feared thousands of central asian fighters who have been fighting alongside the taliban under the islamic movement of uzbekistan and could pose a security threat to those countries. mark: there was a protest today calling for an end to pakistani influence in afghanistan. pakistan of course the backer, the supporter of the taliban. what are your fears going forward from here for the future of your country? bilal: well, afghanistan no doubt will be facing international isolation with the current leadership of the taliban and their vision. the gains of the last 20 years have been washed away. state institutions have crumbled. pakistan's spy chief when he visited kabul's hotel, that was not welcomed b

palace taliban. it's a very brutal reminder that history is repeating itself. and i think the american media struggling on how to cover the fact that america lost this war. does president, if i'm not there, the blame for this disastrous exit at the warren terror has not been a victory for, for the us. whether it was in iraq or enough ganeth down to war is going to continue in so many ways for the people of afghanistan. the inconvenient kind of truth about the war that have been rediscovered include the fact that there was massive disruption, massive death. as a result of the war, the fact that the united states was supporting a government in kabul, which was not legitimately eyes of many of the african people. and that led them to see in many cases the tale was the lesser of 2 evils. the, the don't you know, like all of off con cities to the taliban and now controls nearly all the major cities and the media cottage accompanying it was again on cobbled generated a kind of public sean, the few new stud

lee formed in 2015 when members of the pakistani taliban, the afghani taliban and al qaeda and other members of jihadis groups coalesced around one leader, who had been nominated as the governor or top leader to oversee this branch operating in afghanistan. not long after that, they embarked on one of the most deadly campaigns in terrorism we have seen ever in the region. by 2018 there were one of the top four deadliest terror organizations on the planet. host: the taliban has been allied with al qaeda in the past, what is isis-k's relationship with al qaeda? guest: these groups are of eminently opposed to -- are very opposed to each other. there is a history where different affiliates were butting heads and for all intensive purposes, since then there has been a global competition between the two organizations. so that has played out in afghanistan, too. we have not seen isis-k and al qaeda necessarily butting heads with each other, but because of the relationship with taliban, we have seen isis-k going at it with the afghan taliban. host: hasn't the history of afghanistan shown as

they weren't the taliban. they were the precursors of the taliban.nion invaded afghanistan, and the united states saw an opportunity. it saw an opportunity to inflict upon the soviet union, its great geopolitical adversary, a defeat as humiliating and as psychologically devastating as the one the united states suffered in vietnam for its own imperial hubris. over the course of the next 10 years, the united states, the pakistani isi and the saudi intelligence services funded and equipped islamic extremists, rebels who would come in from pakistan, among them, a figure who would become intimately familiar as taliban ally, gulbuddin hekmatyar, a particularly brutal person. and over the course of the 1980s, they inflicted tremendous damage on the soviets, made the occupation, which was a brutal occupation by the soviet union, ever more violent and ever more protracted, to the point where the soviets withdrew and, a couple years later, the regime the soviets installed collapsed, much as like we're seeing the one that the united states installed collapsed.

while the taliban has surrounded af galveston sponge here valley the only province resisting taliban occupation. the rugged mountain valley north of the capitol cobble is the center of of galler stones, most important pocket of armed and p. taliban forces the area resisted taliban rule . during the 19 ninety's, dozens of people were killed when taliban forces launched a renewed assault on con. share. on tuesday taliban leaders have called on the people of punch here to lay down their arms and negotiate a settlement with them. for a lot of developments and surprisingly enough canister. let's talk about all of them. with independent afghan journalists belie, let said wildly, who left cowboy last week, he joins us live by skype from the house. sir, thank you so much for joining us here on al jazeera and looking at the humanitarian situation. first of all, i mean we're seeing access to cash being almost impossible. the price of goods is skyrocketing, half of afghan kids, not knowing where their next meal might be coming from, from the people that you speak to in afghanistan. what are the

the taliban were they are. the taliban did come out at night, because they came out with money, they would say here, and go right some people. so they would always respond to pakistan, and they could always come back. so what kind of military were you going to build that would protect the afghan people? and building one that was sustainable for a scenario when you could not going get the enemy, because they were always going into pakistan, and they could always come back to afghanistan and find someone to would take an afghani dollar and go and fight in american. you had a security force that was relatively robust and sustainable over time, and that was expensive. but that, again, would have been a very moderate cost. i think adam and i completely agree on this. getting out of afghanistan was the right thing to do, i think, if we would have done that in a way which would have been able to sustain the afghan security forces. you know, it might not have been a land of milk and honey, but it would have been real a

but the trump administration gave 5,000 of the taliban's top fighters back to the taliban. what did we get for that? other than empty promises that were broken? >> congressman, the deal that the previous administration struck involved as you rightly said, committing to remove all u.s. forces from afghanistan by may 1st of this year and in addition, as that deal was being negotiated then put into effect, pressing the afghan government to release these 5,000 prisoners. many of whom went back to the battlefield. and at the same time, in return, getting from the taliban to two commitments, one, not to attack our forces or allied and partner forces during the time of the agreement from the time it was reached until may 1st when we were supposed to pull out all of our forces. and as well as no the to go up the major cities. and to take steps to ensure that afghanistan would not be used by al qaeda or any other group. >> one more question. you're criticizing for not getting our weapons out. our weapons were given to the afghan military. they were all over the country. was there a

the _ control of the country. -- taliban. the taliban - control of the country. -- taliban.ill bring peace, we will disarm the population, which is exactly what the public wanted, in other words, disarm the warlords. and we will then refer to our elders and we will liberate the country and we will then, we will not take power ourselves, we will call a tribal council of all the elders of the country and then we will decide who should rule the country. the taliban have been trained in schools or mattresses in pakistan which had been funded by saudi arabia. they swept into southern afghanistan and took kandahar with little resistance. they were really seen as, you know, angels, these young angels who had arrived to save the country. but angels who had arrived to save the country-— the country. but any thoughts that the taliban _ the country. but any thoughts that the taliban were - the country. but any thoughts that the taliban were angelicl that the taliban were angelic young idealists, soon faded. two more years of vicious fighting followed, including a 10—month bombardment o

be the same brutal taliban we saw 20 years ago. but now we're more comfortable with them. they came and gave assurances to get back to work without any issues and thank god they are supportive women and under hardware rulers are acceptable as long as they do not depressed and work for the people and the country. the taliban now has to prove it can deliver some of a job down there to learn about us. president joe biden has traveled to the state of louisiana for a 1st hand. look at the damage from harken. ida. 63 people were killed across 8 states. christian salumi reports from the badly hit city of elizabeth in new jersey . more than a day after ida barrel through the northeastern united states. many parts of new jersey are still under water. but in elizabeth, where the floods retreated, it leaped cars, flooded homes and death in its wake. the water rose so quickly at this new jersey apartment complex. it caught many people off guard. it's merged vehicles, and pushed up against the doorways trapping for people inside. people who liv

there is no such thing as a reformed taliban. this group is woefully stuck in the 14th century, with no will to come out. their concept of political representation and legitimacy is based squarely on the use of violent force and intimidation. the administration says that we should judge the taliban by their actions, and i agree. and their actions since taking over afghanistan had been pretty horrifying. beating women actress murdering ethnic and religious minorities such as the has are separating classrooms by gender, shutting down local, medium, refuse to break with all cater appointing, the head of a foreign terrorist organization as designated by our government from the economy network to lead the ministry of interior and the list goes on. with this in mind, the united states in the united nations should maintain existing sanctions on the taliban. the u. s. should reimpose those sanctions that were waived during the negotiations process. and the u. s. should consider a new measures to impose higher costs on the group and its l

so the taliban will comply. 0ne taliban at the end so the taliban will comply.s cash because the taliban need that. they want to be recognised internationally, the question is, will they and how will that happen? you can also follow the latest on the resistance against the taliban in afghanistan on our live webpage. let s get some of the day s other news apple says it's delaying the introduction of its controversial tools to detect images of child sex abuse on iphones in the us. its announcement of the new tools last month immediately sparked criticism, with digital rights advocates warning that the software would open a back door into people s devices for oppressive governments and criminals. a former roman catholic archbishop has gone on trial in the united states on charges of child sexual abuse. the ninety—one year old theodore mccarrick pleaded not guilty, at a court in the state of massachusetts. he was defrocked two years ago after a vatican investigation found him guilty of the sexual abuse of children and adults. the european union and the pharmaceutica

what are the taliban offering in return? >> this is not necessarily what the taliban are asking for in return. the money they are asking for belongs to the government, and at this point, they are the afghan government. we have to remember that the u.s. struck a deal with them in 2020. germany has been meeting with them since 2011, as have other countries. they were all here when they came to power. they laid the situation down when they came to power. then they all of a sudden cut off the footing. it is not the taliban leaders that are suffering. everyone is suffering. just like the former leader did not suffer from cutting off funding. in the end, it is the afghan people suffering. it is the afghan people who are hungry. ironic that these countries were willg to meet with the taliban for years and sit down with them and make agreements with them and seek their help in pulling out citizens, but cut off funding once they come into power. brent: what about foreign aid associations not linked to any governments? they are reluct

i think that now that the taliban are installed in power in kabul, the taliban are going to be extremely reluctant to accept any intermediary they are going to be demanding that they any international acts or deal directly with them. so, you know, we, we saw that even when the, the director of the pakistan intelligence service came into cobble and had a role in brokering the agreement amongst the taliban for the cabinet. this was extremely controversial, even amongst the taliban. so i think that you should expect that the, the top one will be demanding that we will talk directly on if there are, you know, if there are issues in the, with the united nations. no, no mediator or broker is going to be able to solve it. will only be solved directly between the the taliban and the international actors. now, are we going to see a smarter taliban more smarter than they were in $96.00. understand that they need to negotiate with the international community. but it's going to be an negotiation, not a demand, because it seems to me the, i guess the saying, actually, until they stop demanding and ma

this has embolden the taliban and our adversaries, the taliban, a designated terrorist group now equippedh weapons that most countries in the world, and just a few weeks ago in the world, the thousands of terrorists, the worst of the worst all released from prison as the taliban overran the country. the situation that we find ourselves in is far worse in my judgment, far worse than pre9/11. to make matters worse, we abandoned mile an hours behind the enemy lines and left behind the interpreters who you, mr. secretary, you and the president both promised to protect. i can summarize this in one word, betrayal. the america i know keeps its promises and the most important promise in the military is no man left behind, no one left behind, but you broke this promise. it is not the only promise that this administration broke. in april president biden promised, quote, we will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit, and we will do it responsibly and deliberately and safely, but that promise was broken. and then in july the president said, quote, there's going to be no circumstance where you can see

the greatest concern i have is that the taliban in charge of afghanistan is the same taliban that was in charge of afghanistan on 9-11. and that tells me that one of the dangers here is that afghanistan could clearly become a safe haven for terrorists for al-quaida, for isis, for the haqqani terrorists and that that could represent a real threat to our national security. i'm more interested in trying to determine what steps does the united states have to take now to make sure that we can protect our national security in the future. >> neil: we can't protect it in afghanistan, right? so if these groups are allowed to do whatever they want with taliban protection, whatever differences that they have amongst themselves like isis-k and the taliban, if you're right and you have signals this from the past, we might have to return to afghanistan. >> well, you know, the issue for this president and for our country is to do what is necessary to protect our national security. we've just been through a 9-11 20th anniversary where we saw what al-quaida was willing to do in attacking our country a