The United States killed Al-Qaeda's chief in an airstrike on his house in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Though the agreement between the US and the Taliban is not public, one thing that is clear is that the US was supposed to completely withdraw its military presence and stop its operations in Afghanistan as part of the deal. Doesn't that mean the US wasn't allowed to do any such operation? Isn't this a violation of the deal signed between the two powers?
(This answer is analyzing the import of the agreement referred to in the question, not international law, which is another aspect)
Pretty much. About the only hard commitment the Taliban got nailed to in the (public) 2020 Doha Accords was not to allow Afghanistan to be used as a terrorist base.
- The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban will prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising and will not host them in accordance with the commitments in this agreement.
(there's more verbiage about terrorist support in the agreement, this is only the most directly relevant)
This is exactly what the US claims:
A Taliban spokesman described the US operation as a clear violation of international principles - but did not mention Zawahiri. US officials maintained that the operation had had a legal basis.
Under a peace deal struck in 2020, the Taliban agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in areas under their control.
However, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are long-time allies and US officials said the Taliban were aware of Zawahiri's presence in Kabul, and he lived freely and in the open in the Afghan capital.
In background briefings, US intelligence officers accused Taliban affiliates of going to the safe house after the strike to try to cover up evidence of Zawahiri's presence there.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that by hosting and sheltering Zawahiri in Kabul, the Taliban had "grossly violated" the peace agreement.
al-Zawahiri being Al-Qaeda's leader hosting him seems to qualify very well for a material violation of Doha.
Was he indeed "hosted"? Or did he live incognito and unknown to the Taliban in Kabul?
It is a neighbourhood which became notorious over the past two decades for its garish multi-storey villas, mocked by Kabul residents as the stronghold of corrupt warlords and officials, a gaudy symbol of the spoils of an ugly war.
Kabulis called it Choorpur, the town of thieves. The Taliban took over some of the empty villas, close to some high-walled Western embassies, which also slammed shut when the Taliban took charge.
p.s. and in the final analysis, Doha aside, esp. with Zawahiri, the US, like Gerritt says, would have done it anyway if it felt it could get away with it. Though it usually doesn't drone friendly countries but rather cajoles them into arresting the target (Pakistan is not really a "friend" in the traditional sense).
Doesn't that mean the US wasn't allowed to do any such operation?
Allowed by whom? There is no world police.
If the United States government decides to assassinate someone, they do not need anybody's permission. They usually won't commit drone strikes on friendly countries without coordination, or unfriendly countries that might strike back. Not because of whether it's allowed or not, but because they would have to face with the consequences. That's why they assassinate people with drone strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, or Somalia, but not in Russia or the United Kingdom. They target weak enemies this way, but not friends or strong enemies, because there would be a high price to pay.
To conduct airstrikes on another country's territory you clearly need the other country's approval. The US does not recognize the Taliban as the government, so they presumably need the approval of the government they do recognize. But that government barely exists anymore, so it's hard to get their approval (and I didn't see anything in news reports saying the US actually did get their approval).
So no, the US is not "allowed" to execute an airstrike on Afghan soil. "Allowed" in inverted commas because there is no reasonable scenario where the US avoids attacking Zawahiri because it is against the law.
Honestly, with all technical aspects, stipulations, laws, and rights aside, just judging from the past behavior of the United States (speaking as a citizen though in complete disapproval of his own Government's actions) they'll do whatever they want and find some way to excuse, cover-up, or place blame later.
They have a long standing track record for this very behavior. To add some factual information to back up this claim - which otherwise is seemingly vague and/or mostly opinionated, here is a list of 13 other agreements, treaties, and similar pacts the United States has broken or gone back on... just on the first page:
While I understand and realize many countries can act irrationally, I've been on this earth long enough to see a pattern with this country in particular. I can see how it may seem nothing more than an opinion... if it wasn't for so many past examples and facts to validate it as more than just opinion.
