Court proceedings reveal witness accounts and U.S. intelligence summaries suggesting potential links between Haqqani Network forces and the 2021 Kabul airport attack.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
New testimony and intelligence disclosures presented during the federal trial of an alleged ISIS-K operative have introduced claims that members of the Haqqani Network may have played a role in the August 2021 Abbey Gate bombing at Kabul’s airport, according to a report by Just the News.
The defendant, Mohammad Sharifullah, also known as “Jafar,” has been charged with providing material support to ISIS-K, a designated terrorist organization, resulting in death. He has pleaded not guilty.
During trial proceedings in federal court in Virginia, defense attorneys introduced summaries of multiple U.S. intelligence reports indicating that the Haqqani Network and its leadership may have had some level of involvement in facilitating the Abbey Gate attack. Judge Anthony Trenga told jurors the summaries were “true and accurate” representations of government-held source reporting.
The intelligence summaries included four reports dated between August 2021 and March 2025. One report alleged that Taliban elements, including figures tied to Sirajuddin Haqqani, may have been connected to the bombing. Another suggested that Taliban officials in Kabul had an active role and maintained close ties to Haqqani leadership.
An August 27, 2021 intelligence report also cited information from days prior to the attack alleging that the Haqqani Network had positioned suicide bombers near Hamid Karzai International Airport.
Federal prosecutors emphasized that some of the material constituted “raw intelligence” that had not been fully vetted. FBI Special Agent Austin Price testified that certain reports were labeled as “not finely evaluated intelligence,” indicating they had not undergone complete verification.
The trial also featured testimony from Afghan-American interpreter Ali Raza Hassani, who worked alongside U.S. military leadership during the evacuation. Hassani described the Haqqani Network as “the most notorious and most violent faction of the Taliban” and testified that its commanders at Abbey Gate operated independently from Taliban leadership that had been coordinating with U.S. forces.
Hassani said that a designated Taliban liaison, believed to be Hamdullah Mukhlis, claimed authority over all Taliban units at the airport but did not control Haqqani commanders at key gates. “At least two of the gate commanders … did not directly obey or report to the Taliban point of contact,” Hassani testified.
He further described encounters in which Haqqani commanders displayed hostility toward U.S. personnel. During one meeting, he said a Taliban fighter pointed a weapon at him while another commander threatened Americans. Hassani testified that the Abbey Gate area was “the most chaotic and the most crowded gate of all.”
According to Hassani, Haqqani forces controlled access points critical to movement around the airport and could have influenced who approached the gate. “If the Haqqani commander wanted to help, he could have,” Hassani said, adding that he was unable to secure safe passage for individuals despite prior approval from Taliban contacts.
The prosecution challenged the suggestion of Taliban involvement, noting that U.S. forces had shared intelligence about ISIS-K threats with Taliban counterparts. Prosecutor Avi Panth argued it would be inconsistent to provide such intelligence if the Taliban were collaborating with ISIS-K.
The bombing at Abbey Gate on August 26, 2021, killed 13 U.S. service members — including Marines, a Navy corpsman, and a soldier — along with an estimated 170 Afghan civilians. The attacker was identified as Abdul Rahman al-Logari, an ISIS-K suicide bomber who had been released from Bagram Air Base earlier that month after Taliban forces took control.
The FBI has stated that Sharifullah confessed to conducting reconnaissance ahead of the attack but denied prior knowledge of the bombing itself.
Additional context introduced during the trial referenced longstanding concerns about links between ISIS-K and the Haqqani Network. A 2021 United Nations monitoring report noted that ISIS-K leader Sanaullah Ghafari had prior ties to the Haqqani Network and maintained cooperation with it. Another UN document stated that such relationships could provide ISIS-K with operational support and access to networks.
Other reporting has suggested that the Taliban may have had prior awareness of potential attacks. A Pentagon assessment previously indicated the bombing might not have been preventable, according to Just the News, even if certain individuals had remained detained.
Historical analysis cited in the trial also included a UN report that described patterns of cooperation between ISIS-K and the Haqqani Network in complex attacks, while additional reporting outlined claims from member states of tactical-level collaboration.
The possibility of coordination has been debated since the day of the attack. At the time, former President Joe Biden said he had seen “no evidence” of collusion, according to an archived White House statement.
Military testimony over the past several years has reflected mixed conclusions. General Austin “Scottie” Miller told Congress he could not verify a direct nexus, while other analyses, including a West Point study published, highlighted connections between ISIS-K leadership and Haqqani-linked Taliban factions.
Further assessments from military analysts suggested the Taliban may have used ISIS-K as a proxy to facilitate the attack while maintaining plausible deniability.
The trial has also revisited U.S. reliance on Taliban forces for security during the evacuation. Testimony indicated that U.S. commanders passed intelligence on potential ISIS-K threats to Taliban units, but responses were inconsistent. Former CENTCOM Commander Frank McKenzie stated that Taliban forces acted on some intelligence but not others.
Sharifullah’s trial is nearing conclusion, with both sides expected to deliver closing arguments before the jury begins deliberations. The outcome will determine his legal responsibility, while broader questions about the circumstances surrounding the Abbey Gate attack remain subject to ongoing examination.
Original article
Comments