Former Afghan intelligence chief Rahmatullah Nabil has claimed that the recent attack on Chinese nationals in Kabul was planned and directed from Pakistan, alleging the existence of an ISKP “operational center” there and accusing Pakistani institutions of facilitating the group.
Pakistani authorities have strongly and immediately rejected these claims.
The attack itself was claimed by ISKP. Security sources and local reporting indicate that an ISKP operative, identified as Khalid al-Mannat, has been active in Kabul’s Shahr-e-Naw area and that the planning and execution trail of the attack points inside Afghanistan.
The incident has once again raised serious questions about the Taliban’s ability to provide security especially in the capital.
A familiar pattern of claims and a credibility problem
Rahmatullah Nabil has a long history of making sensational allegations after leaving office often without presenting verifiable evidence.
During his own tenure Afghanistan saw an expansion of militant violence and critics say his post-office statements follow a pattern of blame shifting rather than accountability.
In this case as well, the accusation appears to deflect attention from Afghanistan’s internal security failures.
United Nations monitoring reports have repeatedly stated that more than 20 terrorist organizations are currently operating inside Afghanistan, including ISKP.
These assessments underline that Afghanistan itself remains the main operational theatre for these groups contradicting claims that the problem is being directed from outside.
The Kabul attack, therefore, does not support the narrative of an external conspiracy. Instead, it fits into a broader pattern of persistent security gaps and weak coordination under Taliban rule.
The real story: Taliban’s internal power struggle
Analysts argue that the timing and nature of the attack point to Afghanistan’s deepening internal rift within the Taliban.
A structural divide has been growing between the Kandahar-based clerical faction led by Hibatullah Akhundzada and the bloc around Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani.
Hibatullah’s governance model relies heavily on decrees, isolation and strict clerical control, with little space for institutional decision-making.
In contrast, the Haqqani camp is seen as more pragmatic, favoring functional administration, coordinated security management and engagement with ground realities.
Sirajuddin Haqqani’s rare public criticism of rule by fear and coercion recently exposed this internal conflict.
The Kandahar faction views this approach as a threat to its monopoly over power and ideological dominance.
In this environment, security failures weaken the Interior Ministry and shift blame onto the Haqqani-led security apparatus.
When factional politics turns into a security crisis
The Kabul attack has exposed how fragmented Taliban governance has become. Rather than a coherent state, the Taliban remain a coalition of factional and area based power centers.
Security experts note that ISKP benefits directly from these divisions. More importantly, the Kandahar-based clerical faction also gains politically when the authority of the Interior Ministry is undermined.
The result is a dangerous convergence of interests where institutional weakness and militant violence feed into each other.
Read more: BBC Investigation Reveals Growing Power Struggle Inside the Taliban Leadership
