Neither the Haqqanis not the Taliban of Mullah Omar have said anything about 'refraining from attacks', so I don't see why Rabbani pointing the finger at the Haqqanis would upset them to the point of the Haqqanis assassinating him.
That's not what I implied.
Rabbani was the key negotiator. If he pointed fingers at a particular group/party, meant that group/party could call itself off the negotiation process. Rabbani was killed while meeting someone he thought could help him negotiate with Mullah Omar Taliban. So he wanted Mullah Omar on the table, while sidelining the Haqqanis. What I am saying is, is it not possible that Haqqanis got Rabbani killed for not considering them worthy of negotiation?
What does Pakistan gain from 'trapping the US in Afghanistan'? That many Pakistanis believe the US is out of its league in trying to accomplish what it initially set out to do does not automatically imply that Pakistan would therefore like to see the US continue to flail about in Afghanistan and wreak yet more violence and instability that directly impacts Pakistan.
Pakistan does not want the US to just get out, as it will bring the kind of instability for which Pakistan is not ready at the moment. However, Pakistan does not want the US to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely either, otherwise it will be impossible for Pakistan to wield the influence it desires in that area. So what better than letting the US be present, but only till it can afford, and by the time it is forced to leave, Pakistan will be ready for a complete take over?
It sounds confusing, because it is very much. But in clear manner, Pakistan wants the US to stay in Afghanistan, and yet not for a long time with complete control, because that would diminish the prospects of Mullah Omar or Haqqanis at the center.
Correct, if the article is to be believed, and Rabbani opposed any long term agreement to house US forces in Afghanistan, then his assassination both removes a critic of the stated US desire to have a long term presence in Afghanistan, as well as giving them an excuse to remain there - a long term US presence in Afghanistan is something Pakistan opposes.
I think it is well known that the US wants a long term presence in Afghanistan, but not at the same magnitude it has now. Also, that if the forces critical of the US presence come to the position of power in Afghanistan, the US may have to pack up whatever presence it will be left with in Afghanistan. Hence, the US would rather desire to have those in power who do not view its presence in a hostile manner.
I don't know if Rabbani was so critical of the US's minimal presence in Afghanistan, if you can provide some material on that, it would be very helpful. After all, per the accounts he rushed back from Iran only at the calls of UK/US embassies to proceed with the negotiations with that supposedly Talibani who ended up killing him.
The US wants to reduce its military strength in Afghanistan, but its negotiations over a SOFA with Afghanistan to obtain some sort of long term basing rights would indicate that it does want to maintain a presence in Afghanistan, which would allow it the flexibility to intervene militarily in the region. Rabbani's assassination then helps this particular US goal.
Again, I am not so aware of
how critical was Rabbani with respect to the US forces' presence in the country. From all that transpired in the recent times, he didn't seem as critical of the US forces, as he was of the Taliban and even more so of Haqqanis. I hope you do not misinterpret my words as I am not implying that Rabbani wanted the US to rule the country. But I just want to know up to what degree was he critical of the US presence there.
