Assessing the Terror Threat Landscape in S. & C. Asia and Examining Opportunities for Cooperation

2025-06-26

Loading video...

Summary

The meeting of the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia convened to address the evolving terror threat in the region and discuss potential U.S. actions and regional cooperation to mitigate these dangers. Speakers highlighted the dramatic changes in the threat landscape following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the subsequent Taliban takeover, emphasizing the growing presence and global reach of groups like ISIS-K and the TTP[ 00:10:36-00:11:09 ] . The discussion underscored the complexity of counterterrorism efforts, the critical role of international partnerships, and concerns regarding the effectiveness and future of U.S. engagement and foreign assistance in the region.

Escalating Terror Threats in South and Central Asia

The terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia has significantly worsened since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban's return to power[ 00:10:43-00:10:59 ] . ISIS-K, identified as the most lethal branch of ISIS, has expanded its influence and is increasingly internationalizing its recruitment and operations to carry out attacks beyond the region. This group has demonstrated a growing ability to direct and inspire atrocities, with successful high-profile attacks in Moscow and Tehran in 2024, and foiled plots in Europe[ 00:12:03 ]

. The U.S. intelligence community warns that ISIS-K's ultimate goal could include striking the U.S. homeland. Beyond ISIS-K, threats from groups such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Balochistan Liberation Army have led to a surge in terror attacks in Pakistan, making 2024 one of the most violent years in over a decade for the country[ 00:11:09 ] . The militant threat in Kashmir has also not subsided, with a recent attack in Pahalgam prompting a military conflict between India and Pakistan[ 00:11:13 ] .

Taliban's Contradictory Stance on Counterterrorism

Despite the Taliban's commitments in the Doha Agreement to prevent terrorist groups from using Afghan soil to threaten U.S. security, Afghanistan has again become a safe harbor for terrorists[ 00:10:59 ] . While the Taliban claims to be actively fighting ISIS-K and fulfilling its counterterrorism obligations, evidence suggests otherwise[ 00:11:54 ]

. The Taliban remains allied with Al-Qaeda, a group with whom it has fought for three decades, and the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee has reported the establishment of new Al-Qaeda training camps inside Afghanistan, directly violating the Doha Agreement. Speakers highlighted that the Taliban appears to be exploiting loopholes and weaknesses in the agreement by allowing Al-Qaeda to operate and train, even if not actively planning attacks on the U.S.. Furthermore, the Taliban's actions, such as opening religious schools that inculcate extremist ideologies and severely cracking down on the rights of women and girls, are seen as counterproductive to broader counterterrorism efforts[ 00:37:47-00:38:44 ] . It was asserted that the Taliban can never be considered a reliable counterterrorism partner.

U.S. Engagement, Foreign Assistance, and Strategic Partnerships

The effectiveness and future of U.S. foreign assistance in South and Central Asia were central to the discussion, with concerns raised about potential cuts and their impact on national security. The proposed "America First Opportunity Fund" was criticized for potentially diverting funds away from dedicated regional programs and lacking congressional oversight, thereby undermining sustained engagement[ 00:36:03-00:36:24 ]

[ 00:34:42-00:35:06 ] . Specific programs, such as those by USAID focusing on economic development, youth opportunities, civil society, and countering violent extremism, were highlighted as critical for addressing radicalization's root causes. The importance of maintaining educational and scholarship opportunities for Afghan women and girls was emphasized as a vital tool against extremist ideologies, with warnings that terminating these programs would fuel radicalization. Similarly, the role of independent media like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) in combating extremism, disseminating U.S. perspectives, and fostering de-radicalization was underlined, contrasting its value with criticisms of other U.S. broadcasting initiatives. The Quad framework was recognized as a critical strategic partnership for expanding cooperation in technology, energy security, and maritime security, serving as a key counterweight to China's rising influence in the Indo-Pacific. While acknowledging the need for tailored counterterrorism cooperation with nations like Tajikistan and Pakistan, speakers cautioned against a complete disengagement, warning that a U.S. vacuum would be filled by China or Russia, potentially limiting U.S. access and influence.

Volatile India-Pakistan Dynamics

The relationship between India and Pakistan remains highly volatile, particularly in the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam attack in Indian Kashmir, which India attributed to the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. India's retaliation led to a military conflict, described as the most serious since their 1971 war, which necessitated U.S. intervention to broker a ceasefire. Discussions revealed that while the U.S. respects India's right to self-defense, there is a call for both nations to earnestly resolve areas of conflict[ 00:13:58 ]

. Pakistan faces criticism for its "dual policies on terrorism," harboring groups that attack India while also engaging in some counterterrorism cooperation with the U.S. against threats like ISIS-K. Calls were made for Pakistan to take concrete steps, such as jailing terrorist leaders like Hafiz Mohammed Saeed and Masood Azhar, and shutting down Lashkar-e-Taiba complexes, as prerequisites for meaningful dialogue with India. The U.S. role in encouraging dialogue between India and Pakistan was affirmed, though mediation of the Kashmir dispute was deemed unfeasible, with solutions requiring bilateral efforts[ 00:49:26 ] .

Tackling Socioeconomic Drivers of Extremism

Several speakers emphasized that radicalization and repressive regimes do not develop in a vacuum, but rather arise from complex socioeconomic factors[ 01:07:12 ]

. Political repression, lack of economic opportunity, community fragmentation, governance failures, and corruption create grievances that groups like ISIS-K exploit for recruitment. Additionally, a lack of education and poor media literacy increase vulnerability to online propaganda. The importance of "soft power" tools, such as security cooperation, public diplomacy, economic support, development, and intelligence, was highlighted as essential for preventing terrorism from reaching U.S. shores. USAID programs that supported rural economic development and youth opportunities were cited as producing real results in bolstering regional resilience. Concerns were raised that eliminating these programs, including those supporting education for women and girls in Afghanistan, would fuel extremist ideologies and make nations less safe[ 00:38:40-00:38:44 ] .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was primarily serious and concerned, reflecting the gravity of the terror threats discussed. There was a strong undercurrent of criticism regarding the current administration's foreign policy choices, particularly concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan and proposed cuts to foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs[ 00:10:43 ] [ 01:02:30 ]

. Speakers expressed a desire for effective, bipartisan counterterrorism strategies, but also acknowledged past failures and the need for accountability in aid programs[ 00:15:32 ] . A sense of urgency was conveyed regarding the need for sustained U.S. engagement to prevent other powers like China and Russia from filling a strategic vacuum.