Taliban foreign terrorist designation under review, Rubio says
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the US was reviewing whether to designate the Taliban as a foreign terrorist organisation.
Mr Rubio was on Capitol Hill testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on the proposed State Department budget.
The Taliban is designated as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group.
FTO sanctions freeze the assets of the designated group. They differ from SDGT designations in that they make it a crime to provide 'material support or resources' to a designated group; members of an FTO are automatically inadmissible to the US; and victims of terrorist attacks and their survivors are able to file civil lawsuits against FTOs and the entities that support them, according to the Atlantic Council think tank.
The Taliban have ruled Afghanistan since 2021, retaking power after the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Since it returned to power, the Taliban have reinstated their strict interpretation of Islamic law. They have essentially erased women and girls from public life, from schools to journalism to public parks, and have removed protections for minority ethnic and religious groups.
But critics have argued that an FTO designation often has the unintended consequence of obstructing the flow of humanitarian aid. Even before the US withdrawal, Afghanistan was a major recipient of US and other foreign aid, and the assistance continues to help prop up its economy.
Mr Rubio's comments come after the US announced Afghanistan would be removed from the list of countries whose citizens have Temporary Protected Status.
The Department of Homeland Security said that 'conditions in Afghanistan no longer meet the statutory requirements' for TPS, which provides protection from deportation as well as the ability to work in the US to citizens of countries experiencing conflict or other crises.
'This administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent,' said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilising economy no longer prevents them from returning to their home country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Europeans seek Iran climbdown on nuclear programme in crisis talks
European ministers on Friday held emergency diplomatic talks in Geneva with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an attempt to contain the Iran-Israel war. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Europeans say they are best-placed to negotiate with Tehran and Mr Araghchi travelled out of his country for the first time since the war erupted. On arrival he declared Iran refused to negotiate an end to the conflict as long as Israeli strikes continued. "We are not seeking to negotiate with anyone," Mr Araghchi said. "I believe that as a result of our resistance, we will gradually see them distance themselves from the aggression carried out by the Israeli regime. Calls to end this war have already begun and will only intensify." The meeting started at 3.30pm at the Intercontinental Hotel in Geneva between Mr Araghchi and the so-called E3 countries - Germany, France, and the UK - as well as EU foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas. It remains unclear how long it will last. 'We, Europeans, are engaging in dialogue with Iran to de-escalate the situation,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on X. 'The only possible way forward is dialogue.' The meeting was preceded by a lunch between they European ministers, without Mr Araghchi, where they reviewed preparatory discussions with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Mr Barrot's office said Mr Rubio had told him that the US is ready for direct contact with Iranians "at any time." Mr Barrot is expected to speak to Mr Rubio again after Friday's meeting. Mr Araghchi addressed the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council, where he said Israel's surprise attacks represented a "betrayal of diplomacy". 'We were supposed to meet the Americans on 15 June to craft a very promising agreement for a peaceful resolution of issues fabricated over our peaceful nuclear programme,' Mr Araghchi said. Israel urged Europe to take a "firm stance" towards Iran. "They must demand a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear programme, as well as its ballistic missile programme and arsenal, and an end to Iran's regional terrorist activities," Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Daniel Meron, said. Iran insists the programme is peaceful, but European countries reject such claims. France warned on Friday that: "Iran's nuclear programme has never been as advanced as it is today in all respects and has no credible civilian justification and has no credible civilian justification." France indicated a shift in its position on curbing Iran's nuclear programme, with President Emmanuel Macron saying that he wanted Iran to move towards 'zero nuclear enrichment'. This represents an alignment with previous requests made by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. France had previously never deviated from the position agreed in a nuclear deal struck in 2015 by Iran and world powers, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which capped enrichment activities at 3.67 per cent. "It is essential to prioritise a return to substantive negotiations which include nuclear – to move to zero enrichment, ballistics – to limit Iranian capacities, and the financing of all the terrorist groups that destabilise the region," Mr Macron said. Israel has outlined conditions including getting rid of Iran's nuclear programme stockpiles and stopping uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. Those close to the Israeli position assess that the capability of enrichment to the lower level of 3.67 per cent in the JCPOA means it is too easy to breach by enriching to a higher level. Israel says Iran could pursue a civilian nuclear programme without conducting enrichment on home soil. This would represent a repudiation of the long-standing Iranian position that all countries are entitled to enrich uranium under UN safeguards and international treaties.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Back in the crossfire: Iraq's Tehran-backed militias prepare to support Iran if US intervenes
An air of uncertainty surrounds US President Donald Trump and potential American involvement in Israel's war against Iran. While Tehran has long been an adversary of Washington and a source of international concern over its nuclear ambitions, Middle East governments and the broader international community have warned the Americans that joining and fuelling the conflict could have catastrophic consequences. As Mr Trump considers whether or not to directly involve US forces, one of Iran's largest support networks remains deeply embedded in Iraq. Powerful militant groups, tied to Tehran through years of military and strategic co-operation, are watching developments closely and escalating their threats of military action to back their ally. It is a big risk and Iraq would pay a heavy price, which it cannot afford. It just started rebuilding its security and stabilising the country Iraqi government source Sources close to the Iraqi government said some of the most prominent militant groups have confirmed this week that US military intervention to support Israel would trigger a retaliatory response. 'They told the government that they would go in and that they disagree with the decision to stand by,' one source said. That is a reference to Baghdad's decision, at the start of this war, not to be part of it. The government does not want to turn Iraq into another battlefield for a regional conflict. One source said that the Iraqi government has 'warned the militias against any involvement,' fearing that it would result in further escalation. 'It is a big risk and Iraq would pay a heavy price, which it cannot afford,' the source added. 'It has just started rebuilding its security and is stabilising as a country.' Iraqi militant factions operate on their own terms, but military action to support Iran would not be straightforward and could result in severe consequences, the government sources added. 'The US know where those factions are based and can easily eliminate them if they chose to,' one source said. 'They can target them one by one.' Hassan Janabi, a former Iraqi ambassador and minister, told The National: 'It is clear that armed factions will see US involvement as an opportunity to carry out attacks on US sites, including the embassy in Baghdad.' Although direct American involvement would not be a surprise, it would 'increase the anger of the Iraqi public, which is hostile to Israel and America, as well as the Iran-aligned armed factions that are ideologically and strategically tied to Tehran,' Mr Janabi added. He added that the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani is attempting to portray 'solidarity with Iran by condemning the Israeli aggression, because it is ultimately unable to confront the military escalation taking place'. The threat of a full regional war is more serious now than at any point in the past two years. If Mr Trump sends warplanes to support Israel, Iraqi militias are unlikely to be passive. While the threat isn't entirely new and the scale and potential impact of this type of involvement is uncertain, these Iraqi factions, known as Fasael, have undoubtedly been adopting a more serious tone as the conflict intensifies and enters a second week. Powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr said on Friday that any decision to attack at any time and against any country "is entrusted to the decision issued by the American president present at any given time. 'This means that the unjust decision will, by divine wisdom and divine power, bring calamity and loss upon the man who issued this decision,' he said. 'It will bring calamity and loss upon him, as has already happened.' On Thursday, the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq vowed to attack US military bases across the Middle East if the US enters the war. 'We affirm, with greater clarity, that if the United States enters this war, the 'crazy' Trump will lose all the trillions he dreams of seizing from this region,' militia leader Abu Ali Al Askari said in a statement. He added that operational plans had already been drawn up. The escalating threats come after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Mr Trump will make a decision 'within the next two weeks' and would depend on the outcome of more talks with Iran. 'In light of the substantial chance that negotiations with Iran may or may not take place in the near future, the President will make his decision within the next two weeks.' Just 24 hours earlier, Mr Trump said he had not yet made up his mind, continuing to project an air of strategic ambiguity and avoiding firm public commitments. 'I may do it,' he told reporters. 'I may not do it.' For now, all the indications suggest that Washington is 'reluctant to get directly involved,' one source told The National. 'Trump has repeatedly stated his desire to de-escalate conflicts in the region and end foreign entanglements.' 'Survival mode' Baghdad's view may not align with other capitals in the region, where concern is mounting over a potential US strike on Iran and subsequent retaliation that would make American bases a target. Another Tehran-backed armed faction in Iraq, the True Promise Corps, has also threatened to join the war, intensifying fears that the conflict could spread rapidly across the region. The group, part of a shadowy coalition known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, issued a warning Monday that it would strike Israeli targets and its regional allies. 'We declare that all the sites and camps of the entity [Israel] and anyone who supports it in the region are targets for us,' said the group's leader, Mohammed Al Tamimi, in a statement posted on X. Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at London's Chatham House, believes Iraq's armed factions are in 'survival mode'. 'The situation has gone beyond their control,' he said. 'They don't know where it's going or where it will end, and it's about surviving effectively.' Baghdad does not want to create instability following years of calm. However, 'what's happening now is risking the equilibrium that Iraq has enjoyed,' Mr Mansour added. 'So for this reason, armed groups – certainly senior PMF groups – have tried to rhetorically signal their support for Iran and condemn Israel.' Meanwhile, Iran has also warned of unleashing 'hell' in the region if the US intervenes militarily. So far, Baghdad believes Washington has little appetite for a direct war. Iraq's powerful militias played an active role early in the Israel-Gaza war, launching attacks on US bases and claiming that they fired rockets towards Tel Aviv. But that momentum shifted following a quiet, unannounced truce that led Iran-backed factions to halt attacks on US forces. The truce, involving Washington, Baghdad and Tehran, was reached in February 2024. It remains to be seen whether or not the US will stand by and watch Iranian missiles continue to strike Tel Aviv. Standing by runs counter to the US government's recent rhetoric about 'hitting hard' and its repeated warnings over Iran's nuclear threat, especially following five failed nuclear talks.
