American Adult Film Star Visits Bamiyan Amid Taliban’s Ban On Afghan Women
Whitney Wright, a well-known American adult film star, shared a video of her visit to Band-e Amir, Afghanistan’s national park, on Saturday.
Whitney Wright, a well-known American adult film star, shared a video of her visit to Band-e Amir, Afghanistan’s national park, on Saturday.
Her visit comes nearly 18 months after the Taliban imposed a ban preventing Afghan women from entering the park.
On Friday, Wright also posted images from Kabul and Herat on her social media accounts, showcasing various locations in these cities. The images included an Ariana Airlines aircraft, the tiled ceiling of a shrine in Herat, a shop, and rickshaws on a street. However, she was not visible in any of these pictures.
Afghanistan International reached out to Wright to inquire about the exact timing and purpose of her trip, but no response has been received so far. The Taliban have also not commented on the matter.
Despite their harsh restrictions on Afghan women, the Taliban have facilitated travel for foreign male and female tourists, aiming to project a “positive image” of their rule to the world.
Previously, photographs of Taliban members posing warmly with female Chinese tourists gained widespread attention, highlighting the group’s stark contrast in treatment between local and foreign women.
Local sources in Takhar province report that Abdul Nasir, a resident of Farkhar district, has died as a result of torture by the Taliban’s intelligence forces.
According to these sources, Taliban intelligence officers arrested Abdul Nasir on Tuesday, and handed over his body to his family on Friday night.
Sources told Afghanistan International that Abdul Nasir was detained from his shop in the Tot Bagh area of Taloqan. The Taliban have yet to disclose the charges against him or provide any explanation for his arrest.
A close relative of Abdul Nasir stated that after his detention, several local elders attempted to negotiate his release with Taliban officials. The Taliban reportedly confirmed his arrest and assured them that he would be freed soon. However, on Friday night, 1 March, his body was returned to his family.
Relatives of the deceased claim that visible signs of torture were present on his body, leading them to believe he died as a result of mistreatment while in Taliban custody.
Pattern of Deaths in Taliban Prisons
This is not the first case of a detainee dying in Taliban custody. Over the past three years, numerous reports have surfaced of individuals dying due to torture in Taliban prisons. Human rights organisations have repeatedly accused the Taliban of unlawful detentions, arbitrary arrests, and the systematic torture of prisoners.
In October 2024, Hibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban’s supreme leader, acknowledged reports of prisoners dying under torture during a visit to Kunduz province. He stated that he had received reports of such incidents and contacted prison officials to inquire whether these deaths were carried out under judicial orders or occurred without legal authorisation. The prison official reportedly denied any knowledge of the incidents, claiming that subordinates had carried out the killings.
Despite acknowledging the issue, Akhundzada has not announced any action to hold those responsible for the torture and deaths of detainees accountable. The Taliban leadership remains silent on addressing or preventing further incidents of abuse in detention centres.
The United Kingdom has urged the international community to maintain collective pressure on the Taliban to lift their “inhumane” restrictions on women and girls.
Speaking at the 58th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday, Eleanor Sanders, the UK Ambassador for Human Rights at the United Nations, condemned the Taliban’s continued suppression of women, particularly the bans on female education and employment.
She described the prohibition of women’s access to medical education, including nursing, midwifery, and dentistry, as “appalling,” highlighting these actions as clear violations of fundamental human rights. Sanders called on the Taliban to immediately reverse these restrictions, stating, “The Taliban must lift these inhumane measures to ensure a brighter future for all Afghans.”
The UK Human Rights Ambassador also reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to supporting vulnerable groups in Afghanistan, announcing a £171 million humanitarian aid package to provide essential services.
She stressed that sustained international pressure is crucial to compelling the Taliban to reverse their repressive policies and uphold the rights of all Afghans.
The Afghanistan Freedom Front (AFF) has announced a temporary suspension of military operations against the Taliban until the end of Ramadan.
In an official statement, the group declared that it will refrain from conducting military actions as long as its forces are not attacked and its bases and positions remain free from direct threats.
However, the front’s intelligence networks will continue their operations and maintain close surveillance of the situation.
The statement further emphasised that if the Taliban engage in actions that violate Islamic and humanitarian principles—such as harassing civilians, committing violence against women, or targeting vulnerable groups—the AFF will respond accordingly, based on the circumstances.
The AFF expressed hope that the Afghan people will experience Ramadan in peace, unity, and harmony.
The front is one of the two major armed groups opposing the Taliban, alongside the National Resistance Front (NRF).
Recently, the group claimed that over the past year, it had carried out 87 targeted attacks on Taliban bases, checkpoints, and gathering centres, resulting in the deaths of 229 Taliban fighters and the injury of 166 others.
On Friday, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in the Oval Office. What was expected to be a diplomatic discussion turned into a heated, on-camera argument broadcast worldwide.
It all started after President Trump opened by demanding an “immediate” ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war and warned Zelenskyy to “make peace or lose American support”. Trump claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin was ready for a deal, urging Zelenskyy to negotiate. In contrast, Zelenskyy insisted no peace talks could occur “until (Ukraine) has security guarantees” against another Russian offensive. He urged Trump to “make no compromises with a killer” (referring to Putin).
At one point, Trump bluntly told Zelenskyy, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.” This threat meant the U.S. would withdraw support if Ukraine didn’t pursue negotiations. Trump emphasized he didn’t want the U.S. entangled in an “endless war,” framing his stance as putting “America First.”
Vice President J.D. Vance sided firmly with Trump. Vance scolded Zelenskyy for “litigating” their dispute “in front of the media” and called him “disrespectful”. He complained that Zelenskyy hadn’t shown enough gratitude for U.S. aid, saying the Ukrainian leader failed to say “thank you” for American support. The White House later echoed this, asserting Trump and Vance were “standing up for Americans” and would not “tolerate...disrespect of America”.
Zelenskyy defended his position vigorously despite being outnumbered in the room. With arms folded in defiance, he challenged Vance on what kind of diplomacy was meant, given Putin’s track record. “What kind of diplomacy are you talking about, JD?” he asked pointedly. He also urged Trump not to compromise with Putin, stating one cannot trust a “killer”. Throughout the televised clash, Zelenskyy argued that Ukraine’s survival depended on firm opposition to Russian aggression, not a rushed peace that favors the aggressor.
By all accounts, the meeting was extraordinarily confrontational. Voices were raised as Trump and Zelenskyy shouted at each other about ending the war. The encounter was described as “heated and contentious”. It was Trump’s choice to have media present, turning a high-stakes diplomatic discussion into a public spectacle. At times Zelenskyy spoke in English (not his native language) and grew visibly frustrated, while Trump talked over him, leading to chaotic scenes.
The meeting ended abruptly. Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House early without the usual courtesies. As a result, a planned joint press conference was canceled, and a highly anticipated U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal (for joint development of Ukraine’s natural resources) was left unsigned and in limbo. This deal had been touted as a means to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction and strengthen ties.
Immediately after, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to double down on his stance. He wrote that Zelenskyy “is not ready for Peace if America is involved” and claimed Zelenskyy felt U.S. involvement gave him an advantage. Trump said Zelenskyy could “come back when he is ready for peace.” Later, departing for Florida, Trump told reporters that Zelenskyy “needs to realize he is losing the war.” He added: “He’s got to say, ‘I want to make peace.’ … He doesn’t have to stand there and say ‘Putin this, Putin that,’ all negative things.”
Zelenskyy, for his part, gave a tempered reaction after the dust settled. In a Fox News interview later that evening, when asked if his relationship with Trump could be repaired, he said “Yes, of course” and even appeared apologetic, adding, “I’m sorry for this.”. This hinted that Zelenskyy regretted how the encounter unfolded. However, he maintained Ukraine’s need for security guarantees and continued to resist any ceasefire that left Ukraine vulnerable. This interview with Fox News left some rooms for maybe that diplomatic relations with the U.S. could be salvaged despite this historic confrontation.
The White House swiftly put out its own narrative of the event. In an official post titled “Support Pours in for President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength," the administration framed the confrontation as a show of strength. It highlighted supportive quotes from cabinet members and senate and house representative Republicans.
The Ukrainian side did not issue a full formal readout immediately (beyond Zelenskyy’s brief media comments). However, an official in Zelenskyy’s delegation described the meeting’s collapse to Reuters, confirming Zelenskyy was ushered out early and did not sign the agreement they came for. Ukrainian officials scrambled to reassure allies, with Zelenskyy phoning European leaders after leaving the White House.
Political and Diplomatic Fallout
Within the U.S., the clash sharply divided American politicians. Supporters of Trump, mostly Republicans aligned with his “America First” view, applauded his stance. For example, Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters, “What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful and I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelenskiy again”. Rep. Ralph Norman lauded Trump and Vance for “ensuring we put the American people FIRST”. They argue that Trump is forcing Ukraine to seriously seek peace and not take U.S. aid for granted.
Critics of Trump, many Democrats and some Republicans focused on national security, were alarmed. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned the confrontation, saying attacking Zelenskyy “undermine[d] the safety and security of America” and noting one must remember “who started the war… there is only one answer: Russia.”. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the meeting “appalling”, warning it would “embolden Vladimir Putin” and that the U.S. “must not reward Russian aggression”. Sen. Jack Reed (Senate Armed Services ranking member) blasted the incident as “a political ambush and a shameful failure of American leadership,” saying it “does great harm to U.S. standing in the world” and only benefits Putin.
Within the international community, the European countries quickly rallied behind Zelenskyy after seeing the Oval Office spat. European leaders voiced strong support for Ukraine. Germany’s opposition leader at the time, Friedrich Merz, like the coming German Chancellor, emphasized “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war."
France’s President Emmanuel Macron, NATO officials, and EU leaders all reached out to Zelenskyy to reassure him. The UK scheduled an emergency meeting of European leaders (with Zelenskyy attending) for the following Sunday to discuss creating a “security backstop,” essentially alternative security guarantees or aid plans, in case the U.S. pulled back support. These moves signaled that if Trump is reconsidering its support for Ukraine, Europe would step up efforts to back Zelenskyy and prevent Ukraine from being forced into a disadvantageous peace.
The implications of this development for war in Ukraine is worth putting attention. No doubt that this incident left Ukraine in a precarious spot. Zelenskyy left Washington empty-handed, without the economic deal or a solid assurance of U.S. backing. As Reuters reported, this meeting’s “disaster” drove U.S.-Ukraine relations to a new low. There were fears that Trump’s stance might translate into reduced military aid or pressure on Ukraine to negotiate on Putin’s terms, potentially weakening Ukraine’s position in the ongoing war. Ukrainian forces, meanwhile, publicly stayed resolute; Ukraine’s army chief emphasized their determination to keep fighting Russia.
News of the clash even jolted financial markets briefly. U.S. stocks dipped when headlines broke about the contentious meeting, as investors were unnerved by the public spat between two world leaders (uncertainty in geopolitics can spook markets). However, markets rebounded by day’s end as it became clear no immediate policy change (like cutting off aid that day) had occurred and “cooler heads prevailed” in trading. Still, the event underscored how closely global markets are watching the U.S.–Ukraine relationship and the war’s trajectory.
Shafqat Ali Khan, spokesperson for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has stated that the ongoing closure of the Torkham border crossing is due to the Taliban’s attempt to construct a checkpoint on Pakistani soil.
He described the move as a violation of existing protocols, emphasising that Pakistan seeks to resolve the issue through dialogue.
During a press briefing in Islamabad on Friday, Khan confirmed that Pakistan had formally raised concerns with Taliban officials and urged them to settle the matter through negotiations.
The Pakistani government has assigned various national institutions the task of jointly managing the borders to prevent unilateral actions that could compromise regional security. Pakistan insists that any establishment of a new border checkpoint must be mutually agreed upon through diplomatic discussions.
“We have informed Afghan authorities that this issue can be resolved through proper discussions,” Khan said.
Despite ongoing discussions, the Torkham border crossing remains closed for the eighth consecutive day since last Friday, following Pakistan’s decision to enforce the shutdown.
Pakistani media reports indicate that multiple rounds of negotiations between Taliban and Pakistani border officials have failed to reach an agreement on reopening the crossing.
Meanwhile, Abdul Jabbar Hikmat, the Taliban commissioner at Torkham, stated two days after the closure that Pakistan had shut the border gate in response to construction activities on the Afghan side.
At the time, he said: “We have asked the Pakistanis to explain their reasons for closing the gate and to reopen the route, but they have not responded to our request yet.”
The prolonged closure has had severe economic repercussions, with Pakistani officials estimating losses of around $12 million for traders. Reports also indicate that the shutdown has exacerbated transportation issues, leaving many traders and travellers stranded.
Torkham is a vital trade corridor, with an estimated 700 to 800 trucks crossing daily, in addition to 4,000 to 5,000 passengers travelling through the route.
The border has been frequently shut down in the past due to rising tensions between the Taliban and Pakistan. However, the current closure is reportedly inflicting substantial economic losses on both traders and passengers.