How the Taliban tilted toward Iran during wartime tensions

Despite a history of sectarian and political friction, recent statements from Taliban officials point to an alignment with the Islamic Republic during a period of heightened regional confrontation.

Differences over border clashes, water rights from the Hirmand (Helmand) River and the treatment of Afghan refugees remain unresolved.

• 

  Taliban diverts Helmand River water again, satellite images show

The clearest articulation came from Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who said the group does not favor war but supports Iran’s right to respond to attacks.

“We are not in favor of war… Iran is right; defense is Iran’s right,” Mujahid said in a February 15, 2026 interview with radio. “Whatever happens, Afghans are ready to sympathize with Iran in times of war and hardship and cooperate within their means.”

Mujahid added that any assistance would depend on Iran making a request and said that diplomacy remains preferable to escalation.

The spokesman had earlier condemned Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets on June 13, 2025, describing them as a “violation of international law and national sovereignty.”

Foreign ministry stance

Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi also conveyed support in direct contacts with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi.

In a March 2, 2026 statement, the foreign ministry said Muttaqi condemned what he described as “US and Israeli aggression against Iran” and expressed sympathy following the reported death of Iran’s supreme leader.

Muttaqi urged a diplomatic resolution, calling “violations of national sovereignty unacceptable under international norms.”

Haqqani network figures

Figures linked to the Islamist Haqqani network reinforced this position through social media activity. Mohammad Jalal, a senior member of the Taliban’s cultural committee, circulated images of damage in Israeli cities after Iranian missile strikes, framing Tehran’s response as “legitimate self-defense.”

Jalal also shared posts by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf promoting a campaign encouraging volunteers to defend Iran, aligning with broader anti-Israel rhetoric within Taliban circles.

Anas Haqqani, another senior figure, published a poem referencing the Strait of Hormuz in support of Iran.

Pro-Taliban commentators

Media figures close to the Taliban have gone further, portraying Iran as a model of national unity. Abdullah Raihan, a Kabul-based commentator, praised defiance following US threats to target Iranian infrastructure.

“Afghans should learn patriotism from Iranians,” Raihan wrote earlier in April, describing scenes of civilians gathering on bridges in response to threats of bombardment.

Raihan contrasted this with Kabul’s 2021 fall, arguing that “even critics of Iran’s government did not undermine national infrastructure.” He also condemned attacks on civilian sites and adding that foreign intervention is worse than domestic political shortcomings.

• 

  Afghan migrants among those killed in Iran protests

State media mirrors official line

Taliban-controlled national radio and television largely reflected official statements without advancing independent advocacy for Iran. Coverage focused on Mujahid’s interview and foreign ministry statements, framing developments through concerns about regional escalation and sovereignty.

Programming remained largely domestic in focus, though Iran-related coverage rose sharply during the most intense phases of the conflict.

• 

  Up to 40 Afghan migrants die crossing into Iran in severe cold

Whether this limited convergence translates into tangible cooperation remains unclear, given enduring Iran-Taliban disputes and the Taliban’s preference for avoiding direct involvement in the conflict.

In interviews with the reformist Shargh daily and the ILNA news agency, Nematollah Izadi, Iran’s first ambassador to the Russian Federation, openly criticized what he described as Russia’s inaction.

“Moscow will inevitably have to answer to history for this silence,” he told Shargh.

In comments to ILNA, Izadi said Russia had the capacity to do more and may even have been able to help prevent the war.

“Unfortunately, in my view, the Russians were not as active in this war as they should have been, even though they have—and had—the capacity to act and possibly even take measures to prevent the war,” he said.

Izadi suggested Moscow’s restrained response may have been shaped by self-interest. He cited higher oil revenues following the easing of US sanctions on Iran, the diversion of global attention from the war in Ukraine and the depletion of NATO military resources.

“It is unacceptable that a war of this scale occurs in Russia’s neighborhood, involving a country like Iran, and that the Russians, for whatever reason—even focusing on Ukraine, oil sales, or any other reason—show no reaction and do not support Tehran,” he said.

'Strategic partnership'

The remarks stand in contrast to official messaging in Tehran.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to Russia this week and met President Vladimir Putin, describing ties between the two countries as “a strategic partnership at the highest level.”

He said the purpose of the trip was to exchange views on recent developments and reaffirm Tehran’s view of the relationship as strategic.

Putin said Moscow would do whatever it could to assist Iran and noted he had received a message from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei the previous week.

The Kremlin later said Putin had discussed the Iran ceasefire in a phone call with US President Donald Trump and supported extending it to allow room for negotiations.

Russia has officially condemned US and Israeli attacks on Iran as “unprovoked armed aggression” and “a betrayal of diplomacy.” But beyond rhetoric, Moscow has not provided direct military support such as weapons or air-defense systems, nor has it launched a major diplomatic initiative to resolve the crisis.

'Positive track record'

Western media and organizations including the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have claimed Russia may have provided Iran with satellite intelligence or access to captured US missile technology for reverse engineering.

Iran’s ambassador to Moscow, Kazem Jalali, has denied any Russian military or intelligence assistance during the conflict.

Another dimension of Iran-Russia cooperation involves nuclear diplomacy. Rafael Grossi told the Associated Press that discussions have taken place with Russia and other parties on the possible removal of Iran’s highly enriched uranium from the country.

Russia has repeatedly offered to store Iran’s enriched uranium. Alexey Likhachev, head of Russia’s state nuclear corporation, described Russia as “the only country with a positive track record of cooperation with Iran” and said Moscow was ready to facilitate such a transfer, though Tehran has so far shown little interest.

That has sharpened questions in Iran over the practical limits of the relationship.

The S-400 question

Despite a 20-year strategic partnership agreement signed in 2025, the pact includes no mutual defense obligations in the event of an attack.

Meanwhile, promised military cooperation appears limited. A senior Revolutionary Guard official said in January 2025 that Iran had ordered Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets from Russia, but no verified reports of their delivery have emerged.

Criticism of Russia has also spread on Iranian social media, particularly among users opposed to the Islamic Republic, with many mocking what they see as rhetorical support unaccompanied by meaningful action, such as the non-delivery of advanced systems like the S-400 or Su-35 jets.

For all the talk of strategic partnership, the recent war appears to have exposed the gap between Tehran’s expectations and Moscow’s priorities—fueling skepticism both among officials and across Iranian social media.

Iran’s worsening economic crisis is drawing unusually blunt warnings from state media and establishment voices as war, inflation and shortages squeeze households and expose the limits of the government’s response.

The exchange rate for the US dollar surged again on Wednesday, April 29, climbing above 1.8 million rials.

That same day in downtown Tehran, a single fried egg cost one million rials and a hamburger five million—prices that bite hard in a city where minimum wage is just above 200 million rials a month.

“What is going on in this country, Mr. Pezeshkian?” state TV anchor Elmira Sharifi asked earlier this week, staring directly into the camera after reporting that many Iranians can no longer afford basic staples such as rice, sugar, cooking oil, fruit, dairy products and medicine.

Continue reading

The exchange rate for the US dollar surged again on Wednesday, April 29, climbing above 1.8 million rials.

That same day in downtown Tehran, a single fried egg cost one million rials and a hamburger five million—prices that bite hard in a city where minimum wage is just above 200 million rials a month.

“What is going on in this country, Mr. Pezeshkian?” state TV anchor Elmira Sharifi asked earlier this week, staring directly into the camera after reporting that many Iranians can no longer afford basic staples such as rice, sugar, cooking oil, fruit, dairy products and medicine.

Had President Masoud Pezeshkian been watching, he might have been startled. State television rarely addresses officials so directly or publicly demands accountability. But he is no stranger to criticism. Calls for answers have become routine in the press and on social media.

His administration inherited a vast budget deficit, soaring inflation, high unemployment and widespread shortages. Those problems have worsened since he took office in 2024.

The war with the United States and Israel has deepened the crisis further, accelerating shortages, disrupting supply chains and giving officials a ready explanation for an economy already in freefall.

The government’s efforts to ease the burden have been criticized as too slow and too limited. Its latest initiative asks some supermarkets to offer goods on credit to customers unable to pay in cash.

Fars News, an outlet affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, reported Tuesday that the government had approved a plan allowing households receiving cash subsidies to buy goods on credit, with repayments deducted from future handouts if necessary.

The measure, it said, is intended to support livelihoods and offset the economic consequences of the war.

But the plan has obvious flaws. It applies only to supermarkets that volunteer to participate, and repayments must be made within two months. More importantly, the monthly subsidy itself—worth less than seven dollars per person—barely buys anything.

Iran tried something similar in the 1980s during the war with Iraq, when cooperatives linked to ministries and the armed forces allowed employees to buy goods on credit and repay through their salaries.

Combined with ration books and coupons for essentials sold well below market rates, the system was widely seen as more efficient and more trusted than today’s improvised measures.

The announcement of the new credit-shopping plan came the same day Ettela’at, one of Iran’s oldest newspapers, issued a stark warning.

“The outlook of the war is entirely uncertain, and officials must focus on people’s livelihoods,” the paper wrote.

It warned that surging prices for essential goods, combined with unemployment, labor-market stagnation and the collapse of large parts of the production and supply chain due to war damage, had created a severe crisis.

The nationwide internet shutdown has only made matters worse.

Ettela’at said the current ceasefire could hold, collapse into a limited maritime conflict or spiral into broader war. In any scenario, it wrote, ensuring the livelihood, education, healthcare, security, food, housing, transportation, utilities, communications and employment of nearly 90 million Iranians requires urgent planning and “round-the-clock management.”

The paper concluded with another warning: the government may soon need special economic programs for wartime conditions, and they must be implemented urgently.

Whether officials can move fast enough—or govern coherently enough—to avert deeper hardship is another question.

The government’s Task Force for Food Security and Livelihood Improvement has announced that $1 billion from the National Development Fund will be allocated to import basic goods such as sugar, rice, red meat and animal feed.

The move comes alongside a broader policy decision to continue subsidizing critical imports despite earlier plans to scale back such support. It marks the second time in two years that the fund has been tapped to finance basic imports.

With reserves estimated at around $40 billion, the fund is also expected to help rebuild war-damaged industries, particularly steel and petrochemicals, highlighting growing tension over how these resources are prioritized.

'Nothing left'

For many Iranians, the strain is already becoming unbearable.

Nader, a 42-year-old film industry worker, says he has had no income since January, when nationwide protests began, and is preparing to leave his rental home and move his family into his parents’ house in another city.

“My wife’s job depended on the internet, and she has also become unemployed,” he said. “We’ve been using our savings to pay rent, but if we continue, soon nothing will be left for food or unexpected medical costs.”

The move also marks a reversal of the government’s “economic surgery” policy introduced four months ago to reduce import subsidies.

Authorities are continuing to allocate foreign currency for essential imports, including medicine, at a fixed rate of 285,000 rials per dollar—far below the open market rate of around 1.5 million rials and the official budget rate of 1.23 million.

This subsidized rate, capped at $3.5 billion, applies to critical imports including wheat, medicine, pharmaceutical ingredients and infant formula. An additional $1 billion withdrawal from the sovereign fund is intended to help sustain the system.

Wheat and infant formula remain among the government’s highest priorities because shortages or price spikes could trigger social unrest.

Rising unemployment

To offset price hikes after January’s subsidy cuts on goods such as meat and cooking oil, the government reintroduced a coupon system. Around 87 million people receive monthly vouchers, initially worth 10 million rials per person.

But their value has eroded rapidly. Monthly inflation reached 7 percent and point-to-point inflation 67 percent, according to the Central Bank of Iran.

Consumers describe day-to-day increases in the price of basic goods and services, leaving many households unable to afford necessities.

At the same time, unemployment is rising sharply.

War-related damage to steel and petrochemical hubs has left large numbers of workers jobless and disrupted downstream industries reliant on their output.

'Hunger riots'

A prolonged internet shutdown—now entering its third month—has compounded the crisis, cutting off income for millions. Tourism has also collapsed, with airlines, hotels and local accommodations nearly inactive after the 12-day war.

Even those who remain employed are watching their purchasing power evaporate.

At a petrochemical terminals company in Bandar Mahshahr, representatives for more than 700 workers say their employer has eliminated overtime, holiday pay and welfare benefits.

In some cases, workers report wages have gone unpaid for months.

Political analyst Shahin Shahid-Saless warned that a naval blockade restricting oil exports and broader trade could accelerate the currency’s collapse.

“The national currency will collapse at an unbelievable speed, and hyperinflation will emerge,” he said. “The country may face … hunger riots whose intensity and violence would be entirely different from [recent] movements.”