logo
‘They threw us out like garbage': Iran rushes deportation of 4 million Afghans before deadline

‘They threw us out like garbage': Iran rushes deportation of 4 million Afghans before deadline

The Guardian07-07-2025
Women forced back to living under the Taliban's increasingly repressive regime have spoken of their desperation as Iran accelerates the deportation of an estimated 4 million Afghans who had fled to the country.
In the past month alone, more than 250,000 people, including thousands of lone women, have returned to Afghanistan from Iran, according to the UN's migration agency. The numbers accelerated before Sunday's deadline set by the Iranian regime for all undocumented Afghans to leave the country.
The Taliban, who returned to power in 2021, have been accused of enforcing a system of gender apartheid in Afghanistan. Women returning to the country must live with oppressive laws that ban them from showing their faces, speaking or appearing in public, as well as being excluded from most jobs and education. Anyone caught breaking these rules faces public flogging.
Speaking to the Guardian and Zan Times, an Afghan news agency, at a border crossing in southern Afghanistan, Sahar*, 40, is travelling with five children and says she has no idea where she will live now. A widow originally from Baghlan, a city in northern Afghanistan, she had been living in Iran for more than a decade. She ran a small tailoring workshop and had recently put down a deposit on a home. Last week, she says she was detained, taken with her children from a refugee camp near the southern city of Shiraz, and deported.
'I didn't even get to pack their clothes. They came in the middle of the night. I begged them to give me just two days to collect my things. But they didn't listen. They threw us out like garbage.'
Until recently, women were rarely forcibly returned from Iran. Men, often undocumented labourers, were more likely to face arrest and deportation. But Afghan border officials say there has been a recent shift, with at least 100 unaccompanied women deported through a single border point in Nimroz province, in the south of the country, between March and May this year.
Returning to Afghanistan without a male guardian puts women in direct conflict with Taliban law, which prohibits women from travelling alone. Many of those returned from Iran find themselves stranded at the border, unable to continue their journey.
With temperatures now reaching 52C, local officials say that a number of people have died during the forced crossings. Border officials say at least 13 bodies have arrived in the past two weeks, but it was not clear whether they had died of heat and thirst or were killed during Israel's airstrikes in Iran.
Those arriving at border crossings in southern Afghanistan say they are thirsty, hungry and exhausted, having walked for hours under the sun. Most have no belongings, documentation or plan about where to live.
'From Shiraz to Zahedan [close to the Afghan border], they took everything from us. My bank card had 15 million tomans (£110). They charged 50,000 tomans for a bottle of water, 100,000 for a cold sandwich. And if you didn't have it, your child went without,' says Sahar.
The Taliban says it offers short-term shelter and transport assistance to women deported without a mahram (an adult male who can accompany her on a journey). But many returnees say they received no such help. Under Taliban policy, most single women are barred from receiving land, travelling alone to their home province, or accessing employment.
Sign up to Global Dispatch
Get a different world view with a roundup of the best news, features and pictures, curated by our global development team
after newsletter promotion
Sahar says her options in Afghanistan are bleak. She has an elderly mother in Baghlan, but no home, no job and no husband, meaning, under Taliban rules, she cannot travel alone or work legally. 'I asked for land [from the Taliban], anything to start again. They said, 'You're a woman, you have no mahram. You don't qualify.''
Many end up relying on extended family or informal networks. One woman, recently returned with a newborn, says she was denied food and shelter. 'They told me: 'You're not eligible. You don't have a man with you.' But my baby is just four days old. Where am I supposed to go?'
The UN agency, the International Organization for Migration, and other groups provide temporary aid at border crossings, but they do not have the mandate or resources for long-term support.
In the buses taking deportees from detention to the Afghanistan borders, women also say they are subjected to verbal abuse, bribes demanded for basic services and no air conditioning in extreme heat. 'They said it's a waste for you Afghans. My child cried from the heat, but the driver laughed and mocked us,' says Zahra*.
* Names have been changed
Kreshma Fakhri contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Islamophobia isn't just socially acceptable in the UK now – it's flourishing. How did this happen?
Islamophobia isn't just socially acceptable in the UK now – it's flourishing. How did this happen?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Islamophobia isn't just socially acceptable in the UK now – it's flourishing. How did this happen?

According to YouGov, more than half of people do not believe Islam to be compatible with British values. I'm often dispirited by these polls, as much by the timbre of the questions as by the responses (how many times do we need to ask one another whether we can afford to avert a climate catastrophe, for instance?) But I can't remember the last time I was stunned. This latest poll found that 41% of the British public believe that Muslim immigrants have had a negative impact on the UK. Nearly half (49%) think that Muslim women are pressured into wearing the hijab. And almost a third (31%) think that Islam promotes violence. Farhad Ahmad, a spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which commissioned the poll, was surprised that I was so surprised. Things had been really bad for ages, he said, directing me to not dissimilar numbers in 2016 and 2019. This is the first year the community has included the question about the hijab, which strikes its own particularly depressing note. The hijab was a hot talking point in the early to mid-2000s, when military support for the US in its interventions in Afghanistan was often rhetorically justified by the toxic misogyny of the Taliban. Veils of all kinds came to represent the subjugation of women, to the dismay of many at the time. But 20 years have passed, during which time we've seen Boris Johnson use the burqa in what was condemned as a racist callout to Telegraph readers, and the French experiment with banning full face veils – such as a niqab or burqa – in any public place, a chilling curtailment of, if not technically a human right, then what instinctively feels like any woman's birthright to wear whatever the hell she pleases. Understanding has deepened, in other words – of the racism that anti-veil rhetoric often disguises, and the fact that to make a judgment about who's controlling a woman and the extent of her autonomy, you have to know her pretty well. Or at the very least, have met her. If the figures aren't striking to those who have been paying attention, they remain shocking, particularly when you compare the numbers with those who have a negative view of other religions: 7% have a bad opinion of Christians, 13% think poorly of Jewish people, 14% of Sikhs and 15% of Hindus. This has been a 25-year slide, from the idea that 'Muslim extremists have views incompatible with British life' to 'all Muslims'; and if people were making that elision already, it was not previously sayable. Sayeeda Warsi said in 2011 that Islamophobia was becoming socially acceptable – at the Conservative party conference she said it had 'passed the dinner-table test'. The can't be right, I remember thinking then – she must just be meeting too many Conservatives. Now we're at the point where it's not only socially acceptable, but socially dominant. In 2015, the US thinktank Center for American Progress published Fear, Inc 2.0: The Islamophobia Network's Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America, a revision of an earlier report by the author Wajahat Ali. It presented a forensic account of how post-9/11 feelings of grief and threat had been weaponised to produce a prejudice that had barely previously registered, and it made for depressing reading for several reasons. First, it revealed the amount of money pouring in to the creation of this narrative and from what sources (most of it was quite easily traceable back to billionaires and banking interests, which were simultaneously hosing cash at climate crisis counter-narratives among other conservative agendas). Second, it showed how coordinated and organised so many incredibly well-financed thinktanks were, amplifying one another's messages and keeping a stable of ready commenters for broadcasters hungry for a hot-button issue. Third, the report laid bare how incredibly effective this network was in turning what were once 'fringe, extremist views' (in Ali's words) into mainstream talking points and wedge issues. The UK, however, seemed to lack a few core components of this campaign. There weren't any obvious funders with deep pockets; evangelical Christians weren't a strong voice in politics; and it had stronger regulation of hate speech in broadcasting (though weaker regulation in print). As it turned out, it didn't matter. The US lab created this virus, and we caught it. Never have the effects of Islamophobia been so obvious, or so bleak. To read the domestic news, you would think that no grooming gang had ever contained a non-Muslim. In the rolling news cycle of even our public service broadcasting, Muslim lives are considered less valuable than non-Muslim ones, their loss less tragic. It would be functionally impossible to stand up in parliament and justify arms sales to Israel, small boats hysteria and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, were it not for the groundwork that Islamophobia has laid. In subtler ways, this casual demonisation puffs up a notion of 'British values' that are nowhere in evidence, nowhere defended, except in the supposed dichotomy with a Muslim worldview. Truthfully, if anyone cared to pin down a Muslim value that's incompatible with a British one, it would be unlikely to flatter in the way this framing assumes. Last spring, I met a young woman who had been caring for her autistic brother since she was tiny. She said, in passing, that her faith had helped a lot, because in Islam, people with disabilities were prized, as were their carers, and their treatment as equals was a prerequisite for faithful Muslims. I hadn't heard anything less like a modern British value in my life. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Iran ‘ready for nuclear talks with US but only if Washington rebuilds trust'
Iran ‘ready for nuclear talks with US but only if Washington rebuilds trust'

BreakingNews.ie

time18 hours ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Iran ‘ready for nuclear talks with US but only if Washington rebuilds trust'

Iran is ready to engage in talks on its nuclear programme with the United States, but only if Washington takes meaningful steps to rebuild trust, deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi has said. Iran is set to meet on Friday in Istanbul with the UK, France and Germany, known as the E3 nations, and the European Union's deputy foreign policy commissioner. Advertisement They will be the first talks since Iran's 12-day war with Israel in June, which involved US B-52 bombers striking nuclear-related facilities in Iran. Mr Gharibabadi said in a social media post on Thursday that to enter negotiations, Iran sought 'several key principles' to be upheld. He said these included 'rebuilding Iran's trust — as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States — avoiding the use of talks as a platform for hidden agendas such as military action, though Iran remains fully prepared for any scenario; respecting and recognising Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including enrichment in line with its legitimate needs; and the lifting of sanctions'. A woman walks past a building damaged in an Israeli airstrike at a residential compound in Tehran (AP Photo) Friday's talks will be held at the deputy ministerial level, with Iran sending deputy foreign minister Majid Takht-e Ravanchi. A similar meeting was held in Istanbul in May. Advertisement European leaders have threatened to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism included in a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which would reimpose sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear programme. The UK, France and Germany were signatories to the 2015 deal. The US withdrew in 2018 during the first term of President Donald Trump, who insisted the agreement was not tough enough. Iranian officials have warned that a move to reimpose sanctions would have consequences. Mr Gharibabadi said earlier this week that it could force Tehran to withdraw from key non-proliferation agreements. In a letter to UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the E3 of hypocrisy, saying they failed to uphold their obligations under the 2015 deal while supporting Israel's recent strikes on Iran. Advertisement In the recent conflict, US B-52 bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israel's air campaign. Iran responded with missile attacks, including a strike on a US base in Qatar, which President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted was not directed at the Qatari state. In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Mr Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and accused Israel of attempting to assassinate him during a June 15 meeting of Iran's national security council in Tehran. Mr Pezeshkian reiterated that Iran's nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law and insisted the country has no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. 'Our nuclear capabilities are in the minds of our scientists,' he said, emphasising Iran's position that future negotiations must be rooted in mutual respect, not threats. Advertisement According to the official judicial news agency Mizan, at least 13 Iranian nuclear scientists were killed during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. A spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Thursday the country's nuclear industry would recover from the recent attacks by Israel and the US. 'Our nuclear industry is deeply rooted. What has roots cannot be harmed by attack or pressure — it will grow back and thrive again,' state TV quoted Behrouz Kamalvandi as saying. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% had grown to over 400 kilogrammes (882 pounds). That material, just below weapons-grade level, remains a central concern for the West. Advertisement Despite the growing stockpile, Iran has said it remains open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended co-operation with the IAEA following legislation signed by Mr Pezeshkian. While European officials say they want to avoid further conflict and are open to a negotiated solution, they have warned that time is running out.

Europeans to test Iran's appetite for nuclear compromise as sanctions loom
Europeans to test Iran's appetite for nuclear compromise as sanctions loom

Reuters

time18 hours ago

  • Reuters

Europeans to test Iran's appetite for nuclear compromise as sanctions loom

PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) - France, Britain and Germany will hold face-to-face talks with Iran on Friday for the first time since U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June, aiming to gauge Tehran's appetite for a compromise to avert sanctions, diplomats say. The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 deal - from which the U.S. withdrew in 2018 - that lifted sanctions on Iran in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme. Friday's talks between senior diplomats from the so-called E3 group and Iran's negotiating team will be held in Istanbul. The United States held five rounds of talks with Iran prior to its airstrikes in June, which U.S. President Donald Trump, said had "obliterated" a programme that Washington and its ally Israel say is aimed at acquiring a nuclear bomb. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon. European and Iranian diplomats say there is no prospect of Iran re-engaging with the U.S. at the negotiating table for now. But the Europeans say negotiations must be revived due to a halt in inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and as an October 18 deadline for the expiration of the 2015 deal draws closer. They also want answers over the location of 400 kg (880 pounds) of near-weapons grade highly enriched uranium, whose whereabouts have not been known since last month's strikes. "We are determined to do everything to reach a diplomatic solution," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told a press conference in Paris on July 18. Under the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining the 2015 deal, U.N. sanctions could be reimposed before the agreement expires - a process that would take about 30 days. The E3, who do not want to lose leverage by letting the deal expire, have warned that unless there is a new nuclear accord they will launch the "snapback mechanism", which would restore all previous U.N. sanctions on Iran, including on the oil, banking and defence sectors. With Russia - an ally of Iran - taking over the Security Council presidency in October, the three European countries have signalled that the latest window to reactivate the sanctions would be the end of August. Three European, one regional and an Iranian diplomat said the meeting in Istanbul would focus primarily on the issue of the snapback mechanism. They said the E3 would float the possibility to Iran of extending the snapback mechanism by up to six months. In return, Iran would need to make commitments on key issues, including eventual talks with Washington, full cooperation with the IAEA, and accounting for its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Speaking to reporters at the U.N. on Wednesday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who will be in Istanbul, said Tehran had agreed to allow a technical team from the IAEA to visit in the coming weeks. He warned that a triggering of the snapback mechanism would be met with a strong response from Tehran. It has previously threatened to leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) over the issue. Gharibabadi added that he had heard about the possibility of an extension. "That's very premature now to discuss the issue of the extension. We have almost about three months actually, till the deadline of 18th of October," he said. A Trump administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. was "coordinated" with the E3 when asked whether Washington was discussing the reimposition of sanctions with them, but declined to elaborate. Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer was in Paris on Thursday and due to meet French officials for talks on various subjects, including Iran, four sources said. Israel launched the attacks on Iran saying it wanted to remove any chance of its arch-foe developing nuclear weapons.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store