Finally, the US and Taliban has signed a peace deal after the 18 months long negotiations in the Qatari capital Doha. The US will start withdrawing its troops within the hundred days of the deal and will have to complete it within 14 months. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on the occasion of deal signing ceremony: Taliban would have to keep its promises; must have to cut its ties with the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; and keep continue fighting against the ISIS. On various grounds, questions are arising about the future set-up in Afghanistan that it might again plunge into a situation like the Civil War of the 1990s. But why is this peace deal coming so late and why Washington has finally given up on a military solution? What will be the potential future set-up and whether it will sustain unravel again? What would be the implications of the US withdrawal and how it would differ from the Soviet withdrawal? What role the Taliban would play in the Afghan parliament? Would the future set-up where the Taliban would become a part of the government or at least a political force be successful without any fear of spiraling into yet another conflict? What would be the input of the regional countries to the upcoming political landscape of the Afghan theatre? All these questions need answers where most of the experts, in one way or the other, are in disarray vis-à-vis the future political set-up in Afghanistan. When the US invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban regime, the world assumed Afghanistan would now go into an era of peace and stability as the latter’s efforts – either of war or peace and reconstruction – had the support of international community, world powers, and regional countries. However, that did not happen. Afghanistan did not stabilise. The US-led coalition forces could not ensure peace in this war-torn country. Previously, the US approach to the Taliban and other associated groups was solely military driven. It wanted to eliminate through force all those elements that were a threat to international peace. In a couple of years after the US invasion, many times, Pakistan suggested that the US strike a peace deal with the Taliban, however; the US ignored these proposals and continued with its militaristic approach to cope with the situation. When the Neo-Taliban emerged and the insurgency intensified year by year after 2004, the US accelerated the search operations and expanded troops to many additional areas. For Iran, a peaceful Afghanistan and mainstreaming of the Taliban would be a good development Nonetheless, when Obama assumed office as president in 2009, Afghanistan was his main focus – in order to handle the situation and push it towards a solution: either by military means or through negotiations and diplomacy. His policy, in one way or the other, was pragmatic. He surged the troop’s level on one hand and ordered his Special Representative, Richard Holbrook to contact the Taliban for a peace process on the other. The US made its first-ever contacts with the Taliban in 2009. The Obama administration had realised that the Afghan war couldn’t be won by military means alone so it would be better to initiate a simultaneous peace process as well. Later on, the establishment of the Qatar office and other actors’ role contributed to the peace process, which has resulted in a historical peace deal that is likely to bring peace to the war torn Afghanistan. Moreover, the current development (peace deal) is much more important for Afghanistan. All the three main parties of the Afghan conflict – the US, Taliban and the Afghan government – were serious about creating a peaceful Afghanistan by compromising on some of their own interests. Afghanistan president Ashraf Ghani for last five years has been making herculean efforts for peace, nevertheless; he didn’t succeed until the US too became serious. The Trump administration, though very tough on Pakistan in his early days, realised the sensitivity of the issue. Without a deal with the Taliban, he would not have brought peace to Afghanistan. Furthermore, following the publication of Afghanistan papers by the New York Times, the Trump administration came under pressure from the public that why previous administrations covered up the Afghan theatre from the public and mislead them into believing that the US can win the Afghan war. Besides, the Taliban showed flexibility and keenness for the peace process. The signed peace deal includes the US withdrawal and mainstreaming of the Taliban. The Taliban have also agreed not to allow Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group to use Afghan soil in the future. If hopes are high after the peace deal, on the other hand, skepticism is also there in various circles that the future of the Afghan theatre might be volatile after the US withdrawal. The country might witness another Civil War, much like in the 1990s after the Soviets withdrew. However, the current situation is quite different from that of the post-Soviet withdrawal period. During that time, three factors played their crucial role in the eruption of the Civil War and the subsequent fall of the Najibullah government – the central government, the internal actors (anti-government Mujahideen and warlords) and the external actors (the most active players like the Soviet Union, Pakistan, and the US). At that time, though the Soviets withdrew, their aid continued for a couple of years. The Soviet-backed Najibullah government survived until the Soviet aid continued. However, after the downfall of Gorbachev and the subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Najibullah could not cope with powerful warlords who were now armed with weapons that had originally come into the country for the Mujahideen. Najibullah resigned from presidency ten days before the Peshawar Accord was signed by the Mujahideen on April 26, 1992. In addition, internal factors – such as an anti-government coalition of Mujahideen – were strong enough to compel Najibullah to resign. Besides, he had no external financial, military or political support to sustain his power. The external powers’ role also contributed to the fall of the Najibullah government. The most active players in the Afghanistan issue; Pakistan, the US, and the Soviet Union, changed their roles. The Soviet Union withdrew and later ended its financial support. The US, having achieved its interests, also washed her hands and went off the scene. Pakistan remained involved, being a next-door neighbor; its interests in Afghanistan were long-lasting. Pakistan’s relations were not good with the Afghan government due to many reasons so it wanted to have a pro-Pakistan counterweight in Kabul. After the fall of Najibullah government, Pakistan was supporting the Mujahideen, however, in late 1994 when the Taliban emerged, Pakistan cashed in on the situation by supporting them and they subsequently dominated Kabul in September 1996. If we compare the current situation, it has a similar nature to the previous Civil War. Here too, three main actors are there: internal actors (such as the Afghan government and the US); external actors like Pakistan, China, Iran, Russia, Qatar, and some other gulf countries. All these actors will play their role now as well as in the future. The internal actors are serious about negotiations and a future peace settlement. The US and Taliban have inked a deal that will allow the Afghan government to enter in an intra-Afghan talks with the Taliban. Such kind of agreements did not exist in the 1990s. The US is not keen to continue the Afghan theatre and Taliban are exhausted of forty years of war. Each party is gaining something due to the deal and they are happy about it. The US will withdraw from Afghanistan, which has been one of the top demands of the Taliban and they will become a part of the political process as well. These gains, materialising after a long struggle, were very favorable to them. They are tired of war. Having taken stock of the situation, they know they can’t rule Afghanistan alone, so it was better to stop fighting and accept a slice of the pie. Furthermore, being natives, they want their country to move on. As far as the external actors’ role is concerned, it’s too important to have a positive input to the future Afghan set-up in shape of support after the US withdrawal. Pakistan being the most active and involved in Afghan affairs since long, has a crucial role. It has often been said that the path to peace in Afghanistan goes through Pakistan. Without Pakistan’s support, any political settlement in the Afghan affairs would be futile. If we look back to the Bonn Conference of 2001 on Afghanistan, Pakistan was misrepresented, which had greatly affected the Afghan settlement. For more than one decade, Pakistan has suffered because of terrorism. It wants to overcome this menace, for which regional peace in general and Afghanistan’s peace, in particular, is very important. Besides, by becoming a political force, the Taliban would become instrumental in shaping Pakistan’s interests – which is to block any anti-Pakistani move in the Afghan parliament. Furthermore, China also has stakes in Afghanistan. Peace in Afghanistan has manifold positive outcomes for China. It would open a new market for China; will help China tackle the Xinjiang insurgency; provide China an opportunity to exploit Afghanistan’s natural resources, and most importantly would open Afghanistan up to OBOR (One Belt, One Road) which will connect China with Europe and the rest of the world. For Iran, a peaceful Afghanistan and mainstreaming of the Taliban would be a good development due to many reasons. It would bring stability in Afghanistan, which directly affects the neighboring countries. Secondly, due to the US’ opposition, Iran developed close contacts with the Taliban besides them providing support. It was also believed that Iran provided Taliban anti-aircraft missiles following the souring US-Iran tensions. Moreover, ISIS, which is a threat for Iran, would also be curtailed by the Taliban after becoming part of the Afghan government. Iran’s relations with Taliban have been rocky since the Afghan Civil War when the Taliban assassinated the Iranians diplomats in Mazar Sharif. However, the current situation is different; Iran did want the Taliban to compel the US forces to leave Afghanistan – for its own interests. For India, peace in Afghanistan is a great development, however; it wants to have an active role. A peaceful Afghanistan would not serve as a breeding ground for terrorism in Kashmir and India. Two regions have provided a ground for terrorism in Kashmir: Afghanistan and Pakistan’s former Tribal Areas. In case Afghanistan becomes stable and peaceful, Pakistan would no longer be able to use it against any state for its strategic interest. However, despite these gains, India did not want the Taliban to be mainstreamed. Having this change, its challenging for India to cope with these new circumstances where Taliban will be a part of the government. India would have to formulate a new policy for Afghanistan once the foreign troops leave. Last but not the least, a peaceful Afghanistan and the US withdrawal would serve Russia’s and Central Asia’s interests. Chaos in Afghanistan has also been a threat to Central Asia and Russian interests in the region. Besides, Russia is entering the Afghan peace process in order to build its clout in the region. The US withdrawal would provide Russia an opportunity to fill the vacuum. In essence, interests and priorities of the main actors who are involved in the conflict in addition to the historical shreds of evidence prove that the signed peace deal in Afghanistan would be a successful one to bring peace to the war-torn country. Strong skepticism persists in various circles about the future of Afghanistan. However, the current situation is quite different from that of the post-Soviet withdrawal which led to the Civil War. I do not foresee the failure of the peace agreement because there is only one insurgent group (Taliban) who has a chain of command and works under a proper structure. When the Taliban observed a ceasefire in 2018 on the eve of Eid, not a single bullet was fired. There were a number of groups and factions which didn’t allow Afghanistan to be stable after the Soviet withdrawal. Nonetheless, the current situation is quite different. It’s a test time for the internal Afghan political factions and groups to take advantage of the peace deal and further pave the way for peace in Afghanistan. Now it is Afghans’ turn to seize this opportunity and invest in peace, or already generations have become victim of the war’s scourge. The Writer is Islamabad-based columnist and researcher