Says resource competition could transform Afghanistan into a theater for devastating proxy wars
KABUL — Veteran Afghan politician and Hezb-e-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has launched a scathing critique of the Taliban administration’s recent high-profile energy agreement with Saudi-based Delta International, questioning its legal legitimacy and warning that resource competition could transform Afghanistan into a theater for devastating proxy wars.
The controversy follows a major agreement signed on September 7, 2026, between the Taliban’s Ministry of Mines and Petroleum and Delta International. The multi-phase program—encompassing oil and gas exploration across the Kushk-Tirpul basin in western Afghanistan, local gas utilization studies in Herat, and a framework for the 700-kilometer CentGas pipeline toward Spin Boldak—has been touted by the de facto authorities as a monumental economic breakthrough.
However, in an extensive political commentary, Hekmatyar challenged the foundational validity of the pact, arguing that major multinational energy conglomerates typically secure resource access in states lacking stable, recognized political and legal institutions by engaging powerful de facto actors outside formal national consensus frameworks. He stressed that because the Taliban administration operates in the absence of a universally recognized constitution, representative national institutions, and a broadly backed political structure, decisions concerning strategic national wealth and sovereign assets cannot be unilaterally brokered. He asserted that major economic pacts executed without transparent, competitive bidding among international corporations and lacking comprehensive national legitimacy carry inherent legal and political vulnerabilities.
Beyond domestic governance concerns, Hekmatyar’s critique highlights acute geopolitical fault lines surrounding Central-to-South Asian energy transit corridors. He cautioned that intense competition over hydrocarbon export routes—particularly pipelines designed to route regional energy resources toward South Asian markets—inevitably invites friction from neighboring and global powers. Pointing to the complex regional matrix, he noted that Moscow has historically sought to safeguard its primacy and influence over regional energy export pathways, while Tehran views trans-Afghan energy connectivity toward Pakistan and India through a strategic lens, concerned with how major alternative corridors might impact its own economic and geopolitical leverage. He also pointed to broader diplomatic currents, noting active security engagements by regional actors like Qatar and Turkey in Kabul, which may pull the Taliban’s foreign policy framework into new diplomatic orbits while straining traditional regional equations.
Drawing parallels with historical energy ventures and pipeline maneuvers from previous decades—such as earlier proposals involving Unocal and Delta—Hekmatyar warned against repeating past mistakes that exposed Afghanistan to foreign exploitation and internal fragmentation. He said that all future natural resource agreements must be subjected to transparent, open commercial competition and anchored by a legitimate national political dispensation to shield the country from becoming a proxy battleground for competing regional capitals.