The Hidden NATO Doctrine in the Game Between the Taliban and Pakistan
By Abdul Naser Noorzad, security and geopolitics researcher, exclusively for Sangar
In the contemporary international security landscape, the South and Central Asian region has turned into a laboratory of Western political and military engineering — a place where the U.S., with the help of local and regional allies, primarily Pakistan and Turkey, manages a multilayered project called “war and peace” between the Taliban and Islamabad.
At first glance, this process appears to be an attempt to curb violence, ensure stability, and negotiate with semi-official armed formations. However, in reality, it is part of a broader doctrine that can be called “Asian Nazism”: a form of reproducing racist and expansionist ideologies within the framework of religion, ethnicity, and geography to strengthen Western hegemony in the region.
Pakistan, without Washington’s “green light,” is not even capable of tactical actions along its borders. Its intelligence and military structure acts as the executive arm of the U.S. in South Asia. The Taliban are also indirectly managed through the U.S. The Haqqani element and its hidden network are a vivid example of this combined governance; a network created inside the CIA and ISI with Arab financial backing, now acting as NATO’s security instrument on the borders of China, Russia, and Iran.
In this context, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) plays a key role. This group is neither a real adversary of Islamabad nor an independent security threat to Kabul; rather, it is a “programmed security disruption element,” providing a pretext for controlled destabilization in the region. This model follows the “remote crisis management” doctrine — the logic Washington developed after the Cold War to maintain its presence in crisis areas: creating local crises, maintaining low-level fire, and preventing the emergence of any local system.
In the latest interaction between the Taliban and Pakistan, coordinated by the U.S. and controlled by Qatar, the real goal was not peace, but testing the Taliban’s destructive potential, assessing their operational capabilities, and redefining a new destabilization plan in Central Asia. These military and intelligence maneuvers intentionally erased the boundary between war and peace, simultaneously legitimizing the Taliban and restructuring NATO’s security apparatus within “pocket” states and proxy groups.
Turkey’s role in this scenario is particularly prominent. Ankara, promising a share in the restoration of the sphere of influence, entered the field of Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Pan-Turkism project, once a cultural dream, has now become a security project. Expanding influence from Antalya to the Caucasus, Central Asia, and northern Afghanistan creates a protective belt around the Heartland. This Turkish-Pakistani “axis,” under U.S. guidance, is intended to encircle the eastern belt of Eurasian civilization and prevent the influence of Chinese, Iranian, and Russian civilizations.
Within this framework, the Taliban and their allies have become tools for implementing NATO’s new doctrine in Asia.
Thus, the doctrine of “New Asian Nazism” rests on three principles:
Ideological extremism as a tool for mass mobilization;
Political ethnocentrism for creating artificial borders and internal conflicts;
Racial and identity superiority to legitimize indirect domination.
For this reason, the modern Taliban plays the same role that European Nazis played in the 1930s: suppressing widespread discontent through an ideology of violence. They operate within the framework of the Pashtun regime, with direct support from Pakistan and the “green light” from Washington, implementing the logic of “Islamic racial supremacy.” At first glance, they promote religion, but in practice, they serve as a tool of NATO’s geopolitical influence against the East.
The model of the new Asian Nazism in Afghanistan is similar to the model of the new European Nazism in Ukraine. Just as Washington arms far-right movements and Ukrainian paramilitary forces under the guise of democracy in Europe, in Asia, it fuels the Taliban and Pashtun-centric groups in the name of Islam and resistance. In both cases, the goal is the same: containing Eastern power, weakening China and Russia, and surrounding the Eurasian Heartland through a destabilizing Rimland.
The East, particularly Russia, China, and Iran, aware of this complex engineering, is currently focused on other priorities. This delay allows the U.S. to exploit ethnic and ideological divisions in Afghanistan. Turkey, leveraging the concept of “Turkish civilization,” and Pakistan, using the tool of “Pashtunism,” are effectively implementing complex proxy war projects. This war aims to weaken Persian civilization, destroy the cultural infrastructure of the Tajiks, and create a belt of radicalism on the northern periphery of Afghanistan.
The Persian civilizational geography, once a bridge between East and West Asia, has now become a field for extremist engineering. Tajik regions, once a symbol of balance and political wisdom in Khorasan, have become a laboratory for NATO and a testing ground for Pan-Turkism and Pashtunism. These changes affect not only geography but also the political psychology of the region.
What is happening in Afghanistan now is not simply a state or ideological crisis, but a manifestation of the confrontation between two major doctrines: the “new NATO Nazi doctrine” versus the “Eurasian civilization doctrine.” Under the guise of dialogue, democracy, and development, the U.S. is creating a belt of uprisings. The Taliban and TTP are tools of these uprisings, Turkey and Pakistan are behind-the-scenes actors, and NATO is the hidden-stage director.
As a result, the future of the region will be determined not by talks in Doha or showpiece peace meetings, but by shifts in the balance of power between these two doctrines. If the East cannot develop its own local model of civilizational security against the Asian version of NATO Nazism, the geography of Khorasan will remain for decades a battlefield for the destruction of civilizational aspirations.
In this context, the role of the Tajiks, with their sensitive geography, is extremely important. Tajik geopolitics is ultimately the story of a people standing between the two millstones of global powers, who can still turn these millstones to their advantage. This geopolitics is not a science but a faith: the belief that identity, when fully realized, can turn geography into a source of strength.
The Tajiks must understand their position on the world map, why others fight over their land, and learn to be the architects of this map, using cultural potential, sensitive geography, and internal resources to create an independent, local narrative and to build a chain of cooperation with Asian powers.
