Just your friendly neighborhood Taliban we were told would be such a beacon of hope to society—you know as long as you arent a women or haven’t advanced past the Renaissance period of human history
I wonder who exactly made such a claim?
What we were told, is that they do not pose a security threat to Iran, and in effect they don't.
We were told by knowledgeable and patriotic analysts that "I"SIS-K not Taleban, is the sectarianist-takfiri grouplet that will bomb Shia and even Sunni mosques in Afghanistan. And this too proved totally accurate. Any expert of Afghan affairs will confirm that this country
does not have a deeply rooted tradition of anti-Shia violence, nor any widespread movement motivated by this sort of an agenda. Unlike Pakistan, unfortunately, where a significant shiaphobic current holding up to genocidal views actually exists (it's a small-scale minority, of course, but it is present nonetheless). The fact that "I"SIS-K originally appeared in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan is telling in this regard.
Indeed, modern day Afghanistan was never plagued by such a phenomenon until the CIA left their "I"SIS minions behind. Ethnicity-based discrimination, especially against Hazaras yes, but not sect-based marginalization. There is by the way a Sunni community among the Hazaras, and they too were treated as second class citizens. Because historically in Afghanistan the criterion for social, economical and political discrimination has been language or so-called ethnicity, but not religious denomination.
Concerning the dress code and other such domestic issues, since when is Iran supposed to go on a human rights crusade, a feminist one at that, and meddle in the affairs of neighboring states? It's not Iran's business what the Taleban decide in this area, unless they try to impose it on Iran. Their country, their rules. One may express one's individual disapproval with stricter hejab rules, but let's not extrapolate by presenting this as some sort of an alarming political challenge to Iran because it isn't, nor by equating the Taleban with "I"SIS because that would smack of ignorance or of deliberate fallacy.
So as long as the Taleban do not show any signs of wanting to undermine Iran's interests or Iran's national security, any notion of "preemptive" action against them is mindless. The day they actually commit a serious offense against Iran is the day Iran should respond with full force. And no, it is
not guaranteed that they will, nor do their hejab laws imply anything in this regard.
In the meantime, narratives trying to bring into focus every single debatable Taleban policy as if they had any bearing on Iran, are just there to create animosity, in hopes of generating a conflict where there is none. Equally clear is the identity of powers which are actively seeking to drag Iran into unnecessary military adventures, while at the same time propagating against the actually warranted and inevitable interventions. It's enough to notice that Iranian reformists and moderates i.e. the west's fifth column are the only ones keen on picking a fight with Afghanistan - the same people who oppose Iran's support for the anti-zionist Resistance, the same people who had a problem with Iran rescuing an allied government in Syria.
It actually shows how desperate this front has become about the fact that no security threat has emanated from the Taleban. They're so hopeless that the only option they're left with, other than using their infiltrated agents both in Iran and Afghanistan to try and provoke some clash, is to rehash western secularist discourse about primitive Taleban oppressing women and homosexuals.
