The United States signed a landmark peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, agreeing to a full withdrawal of US troops by May 2021. The deal results from the innumerable iteration of hectic talks; both sides were engaged in the finalization of the negotiations. By signing the deal, the Taliban formally recognizes by Washington as a legitimate political entity in Afghanistan. The Taliban remained resilient for nearly two decades of intense war imposed by US-led forces, which have toppled the Taliban regime. This will mark the beginning of the culmination of the longest war ever fought on foreign soil by the US. It is being circulated that the US ultimately will feel compelled to leave some troops in the country, thus undermining a core tenet of the deal and will spark a wave of violence. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen Mark Miley called Trump’s Feb. 29 deal with the Taliban, which outlines conditions for a complete withdrawal of US troops by May 2021, “the best opportunity to end the war” and “the best hope for a peaceful future”. There are likely roadblocks along the way, and both parties to the deal will have to be wide awake. The ink barely dries on the peace deal for bringing durable peace to Afghanistan when the Taliban made clear that it felt no obligation to do anything beyond the minimum required by the letter of the deal, in which it promised to the best of its ability to prevent Afghan soil from being used against the security of the United States and agreed to begin talks with the Afghan government. The rift emerged forthwith between Kabul and Washington. The deal has stipulated that Afghanistan’s government must release up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners over the next 10 days. Mr Ghani clarified his stance, “the government of Afghanistan did not commit to releasing the 5,000 Taliban prisoners”, spoken to Al-Jazeera. The accord explicitly states that the US will “work with all relevant sides on a plan” to release the prisoners by March 10, the date mutually agreed to begin formal talks with the Afghan government in Oslo. The prisoner aspect is just one piece of the much broader covenants of the deal, typically emerged in the war spanned over 18 years. The Trump administration in 2018 began unprecedented formal negotiations with the Taliban to make good on President Trump’s promise to stop “endless wars” in the region. Ghani, whose ascent to power came during the Obama administration, whether the US government would persuade the Afghan government to honor the promises it made in the recent peace deal. The Taliban had long refused to recognize the Ghani’s regime as the genuine Afghan representative, calling it a “puppet regime”. High hopes have pinned on the deal that will follow the intra-Afghan talks between all major stakeholders and aiming to chart a course for peace, security, and stability in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Mark T Esper has expressed his optimism at a Pentagon briefing after it concluded the agreement, saying, “We expect that the reduction in violence will continue. It would eventually taper off until we got intra-Afghan negotiations, where it would ultimately consummate in a ceasefire”. However, testifying before a Senate committee two days later, Esper admitted that the Taliban were already violating the spirit of the deal. “it has mixed the results so far,” he explained. “They’re honoring their piece of it in terms of not attacking U.S. and coalition forces but not to sustain the reduction of violence.” Last year when the US was preparing to sign essentially the same deal with the Taliban, a suicide car-bomb attack in Kabul massacred an American soldier and 11 others in Kabul. The deadly assaults have infuriated the president, and as a result, Trump immediately called off a planned secret meeting with Taliban leaders at Camp David. Subsequently, the peace process derailed, peace negotiations halted, and a stalemate continued for a long time. “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway”, President Trump angrily wrote in a tweet. The Taliban targeted the civilians in a series of “small, low-level attacks on checkpoints,” according to testimony from Milley. He briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee that while “there were significant numbers of attacks, small attacks, they’re all beaten back.” Meanwhile, he described, “There’s a whole laundry list of reasons to explain that isn’t happening … no attacks in 34 provincial capitals. There are no attacks in Kabul. There are no high-profile attacks. There are no suicide bombers. There’s no vehicle-borne suicide, no attack against US forces, no attack against the coalition.” India’s Afghanistan policy is not driven by ideology, religion or humanitarian grounds If it alters the prevailing situation, it could largely sink the deal. It ties the most critical aspect with the deal, the phased withdrawal of US troops and the Taliban engaging in “good faith” negotiations with the duly elected government of Afghanistan. The deal itself cannot achieve legitimacy of peace without knowing the will of the people. The power wrangling between President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah has not seen respite. Incumbent President Ashraf Ghani declared the winner of the election just over 50% of votes, but his chief rival, Abdullah, who got 40% of the ballots, has called the results illegal based on election manipulation or vote-rigging. To avoid scuttling the nascent peace process, both men have taken a step back for the moment. Ghani postponed his inauguration ceremony, and Abdullah suspended his scheme to set up a parallel government. At this critical juncture, the US has not taken sides, calling for the dispute to settle through “constitutional and legal procedures designed to ensure peace”. However, Abdullah, who was unsuccessful in gaining the presidency twice before in what he claimed were flawed elections, has shown he will not accept the election results, which he termed it a coup. The government has not been party to the talks, with continued infighting among themselves, will they be able to make a deal that brings Taliban to the table with the Afghan government along with other political factions and ultimately pave way for the Taliban into the government? The deal for the complete withdrawal of US troops begins with a drawdown from just over 12,000 troops to 8,600, followed by a reassessment of the ground situation. That initial redeployment of troops in Afghanistan in effect takes about five months and for bringing the American forces into the country to protect its interests in the region. However, the deal with the Taliban is not a pact. We must not ignore this reality. With the change of the individual in White House, the status could materially change. We have already witnessed that President Trump has ripped up the Iran nuclear deal. A deal with an American president is only as good as the commitment and willingness of the current serving president. While Trump has stated his commitment to draw down all the troops from Afghanistan, should expect a Democrat the same, the new president could diametrically reverse course. While Presidential front-runners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders both have fervently favored the ending the 18-year conflict, they could hear the argument from the Pentagon and other advisers that defending its national interest and making it obligatory to keep a military force in Afghanistan. “We are still in South Korea more than a half-century after 1953, when it was the poorest country of the world, and now it is one of the richest. We have twice as many troops in South Korea today as we do in Afghanistan,” observed Peter Bergen, a national security analyst at CNN network. With the worsening security situation, the persistent presence of American troops could be a deciding factor in Afghanistan. In 2009, President Obama’s decision to reinforce 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, whether the American governments have been successful in achieving its cherished goals in the region. India has to take stock of new realities in Afghanistan. The Afghan crisis has juxtaposed India with the most difficult situation. India is rather going hard to decide about Afghanistan, the New Delhi wants the Kabul government to be the strategic player in the talks with the Taliban. India maintains support for Afghan-owned and Afghan-led reconciliation efforts in intra-Afghan dialogue. India’s Afghanistan policy is not driven by ideology, religion or humanitarian grounds; rather it is motivated with a desire to limit Pakistan’s sphere of influence in Afghanistan. This is mainly because increased Pakistani influence in Afghanistan will lead to a reduced Indian presence and unable to fly with their broken wings in the regional politics. India is facing various challenges and room for maneuver in Afghanistan is constrained in many respects such as its limited material capacities, non-Islamic identity, and lack of geographical contiguity. Ghani’s already weak political position, and entirely dependent on American support, can secure the country on its own or make major decisions on its strength. India’s situation is also understandable; it does not mean the entire stage of Afghanistan for India’s sake, or to protect India’s interest. The weak Kabul regime lacks the credibility and legitimate authority of the entire Afghanistan. The Taliban claim that they have already captured 75 percent of the country. While the Taliban negotiate, they exert pressure and influence more than any group and the growing expectations that the Taliban would eventually seize power soon. The writer can be reached at syedzubairahmed@rocketmail.com