Instability in Afghanistan has effectively stalled Pakistan’s regional transport connectivity projects, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Russia Faisal Niaz Tirmizi said, stressing that Islamabad wants to see a stable Afghan state integrated into the region.

In an interview with Russian newspaper Izvestia, Tirmizi said Pakistan had hoped the Afghan government would become part of the regional process, but continued instability had hindered Islamabad’s efforts to develop overland connections with Central Asia and Iran.

“Our transport connectivity projects have effectively stalled precisely because of this instability,” Tirmizi said.

He added that a stable Afghanistan would significantly improve regional trade and transportation.

“If Afghanistan were stable, overland routes to Central Asia and Iran would be much more efficient,” the ambassador said.

Tirmizi said Islamabad remains particularly concerned about militant groups operating from Afghanistan, describing the country as a haven for extremists and terrorists.

He warned that the threat extends beyond Pakistan, saying instability in Afghanistan poses risks to China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia as well.

The envoy said that Pakistan will participate in the Moscow-format consultations on Afghanistan in October.

Former US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad has said the Islamic Emirate has “surprisingly” been beneficial to US counterterrorism interests since returning to power in Afghanistan.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Khalilzad reflected on US decisions following the attacks, saying anger and fear contributed to policies that shaped two decades of war.

“Anger was a factor of urgency because the people wanted to see action: What are we going to do about this?” he said.

Khalilzad was a senior director on President George W Bush’s National Security Council when the September 11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people. Less than a month later, the US invaded Afghanistan to target al-Qaeda and remove the IEA government.

Looking back, Khalilzad said Washington should have considered negotiating with the IEA in the early stages of the war.

“One thought that has emerged is that we should have negotiated with the Taliban (IEA) or included the Taliban in the political process in Afghanistan,” he said.

“We were angry, and we wanted to get information from them,” Khalilzad added. “But if we could have included them … realistically, that could have been helpful.”

He also acknowledged problems with the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, particularly claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

“With regard to Iraq, well, there the information was the problem,” Khalilzad said.

“Without 9/11, I don’t think we will attack Iraq,” he added.

Khalilzad defended the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, saying the war could have continued indefinitely and that the US had largely achieved its original counterterrorism objective.

“We had been there for 20 years. Afghanistan was changed. The war could have gone on indefinitely,” he said.

The IEA returned to power after the US withdrawal and the collapse of the US-backed Afghan government.

Despite the IEA’s former status as Washington’s main adversary in Afghanistan, Khalilzad said its current approach to terrorism has, unexpectedly, benefited US interests.

“I think the Taliban (IEA), surprisingly, have been good in terms of terrorism for the United States interests,” he said.

An Afghan woman accused of supporting the Islamic State has been deported from the United States in the first case to be pursued by the U.S. Department of ​Justice through a little-known court created 30 years ago to deport “alien terrorists.”

Nazira Haji ‌Zada, a 47-year-old who had been residing in Texas as a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was deported after agreeing not to continue to fight against her removal in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court following her ​arrest in July, the department said on Friday, Reuters reported.

The Justice Department had accused her of ​helping conceal a failed, Islamic State-inspired plot to commit a mass shooting on ⁠Election Day 2024. She was never charged with any crime, but her son and son-in-law ​pleaded guilty to related charges last year.

Her case had been filed in a court that had ​gone unused in the decades since its creation by Congress in 1996. That court allows the government to rely on classified evidence in deportation cases.

Her attorney initially argued the secretive process violated her due process rights. Defendants ​in such cases are not allowed to review the classified evidence used against them.

But according to ​court documents unsealed on Friday, Haji Zada agreed last month that she was an “alien terrorist” subject to removal. ‌The ⁠court’s chief judge, Joan Ericksen, subsequently approved her deportation, opens new tab.

“This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law,” U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.

The case marked the latest in ​a series of aggressive ​moves by President Donald ⁠Trump’s administration to carry out deportations as part of an immigration crackdown.

It was unclear, though, whether the Justice Department would use the obscure court ​again anytime soon.

Matthew Farley, a public defender who represented Haji Zada, ​in a statement ⁠said her “choice to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy.”

“Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that ⁠will be ​used against them is a plain violation of due ​process,” he said. “We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a ​judge is asked to address the issue.”