Crises often define presidential legacies. Jimmy Carter had the Iran hostage crisis, Bill Clinton the Balkans, George W. Bush the September 11 terror attacks, and Donald Trump the pandemic. Across decades, Americans may easily forget Afghanistan, given its small size and relative isolation. Still, the country has nevertheless played an outsized role in shaping American presidential legacies, both before and after the United States’ two-decade direct military involvement in the country.

A Look Into the Past: America and Afghanistan

Carter had to react to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan less than two months after Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Fearing that events in Afghanistan would reinforce the growing perception that he was weak and America humiliated, Carter responded by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

President Ronald Reagan’s willingness to arm the Mujahedeen ultimately allowed him to celebrate a second-term victory much needed after the Iran-Contra Affair tarnished his legacy.

President George H.W. Bush appointed Peter Tomsen to be ambassador to Afghanistan, but he did not send him after the country descended into civil war. Bush may have considered that neglect prudent, but history does not treat the American withdrawal from Afghan affairs kindly. While the Mujahedin were not the Taliban, both Reagan and Bush now face criticism for unleashing Islamists, deferring Afghanistan’s future to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and being oblivious to or ignoring the consequences of their decisions.

Clinton continued to neglect the country; he believed that he could contain the growing Al Qaeda threat emerging from Afghanistan with an “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism mission best represented by one-off missile strikes on Al Qaeda camps and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan following the August 1998 Al Qaeda attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.

9/11 and Afghanistan

The September 11, 2001 terror attacks returned Afghanistan to the forefront of American policy attention, where it would remain for the next 20 years. Each of the four presidents who oversaw U.S. policy made significant blunders. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq created a distraction that hampered and politicized the war effort.

President Barack Obama leveraged his successful killing of Osama Bin Laden into an excuse to seek closure to the war on terror, failing to recognize that the scourge of extremism in Afghanistan extended beyond a single man. He followed his June 4, 2009, Cairo “New Beginning” speech and pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison with secret negotiations that led to the Doha process. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s quip, “You don’t make peace with your friends. You have to be willing to engage with your enemies,” reflected an unwillingness to consider how engagement and financial incentives could actually empower the Taliban.

Donald Trump was little better. Ending “the forever war” became a mantra. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster unsuccessfully tried to tame Trump’s urge to cut and run. Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as special envoy to find a way to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

A Turning Point: Joe Biden and Afghanistan

Following his decision to curtail his re-election bid, Biden released a statement highlighting his achievements; he did not mention Afghanistan despite his earlier self-praise about ending America’s longest war.

While it is easy with the benefit hindsight to criticize his predecessors’ approach to Afghanistan, how does Biden compare?

Biden harbored a decades-long disdain for Afghanistan. During a lunch President Hamid Karzai hosted for visiting U.S. senators, then-Senator Biden dismissed Karzai’s assessment of the role of Pakistan in providing sanctuary to the Taliban by boasting, “Pakistan is 50 times more important than Afghanistan to the United States.” Biden left the lunch angrily and abruptly. As vice president, Biden criticized the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. He not only opposed Obama’s troop surge, but he also considered resigning in protest. Upon rising to the presidency, Biden promised to undo almost all of Trump’s agenda but maintained the flawed Doha deal.  Unlike the previous presidents who recognized sacrifices Afghans made on behalf of their own and American security, Biden has repeatedly criticized Afghanistan and its people, declaring, “Afghanistan is not predisposed to unity.”  He was shameless in his inconsistency. In 2001, for example, he voted for the U.S. military intervention but two decades later said he was against “that war in Afghanistan from the very beginning.” Biden then elevated the Taliban as U.S. security partner, by selectively ignoring almost everything the Taliban did or said.

The Afghanistan of 2024

Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was a poor but relatively peaceful, developing nation. The U.S. intervention allowed Afghanistan to resume its trajectory as a developing, modern polity. Millions of Afghan girls and women enrolled and matriculated at schools and universities, rose to public office, served in the military or opened private business. Today, under Taliban control, Afghanistan is a living hell and has once again become a global terror hub.

As the 2024 campaign continues, previous U.S. missteps in Afghanistan and a refusal to acknowledge their own mistakes have deterred both presidential candidates from articulating their own Afghan strategy. This is unfortunate. As with other totalitarian regimes, the Taliban’s rein of terror, misogyny and oppression will give rise to liberation and resistance movements. The new US strategy must be to empower democratic groups, and both women and human rights defenders.

Only a democratic Afghanistan can align Afghans’ needs for a responsible government with the broader demand for a terrorism-free Afghanistan.

The author is Dr. Davood Moradian. He is the founder and the first director-general of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS). He earned a doctorate degree from University of St Andrews (Scotland). His doctorate thesis was on the conception of punishment in ancient Greece, Islam and International Justice.

Intel has won a federal grant of up to $3.5 billion to produce semiconductors for the Pentagon as part of a classified program called “Secure Enclave.” The agreement, which involves U.S. government officials, is aimed at bolstering the production of chips for military and intelligence purposes, according to sources familiar with the deal.

The program is set to cover multiple U.S. states, including a key manufacturing facility in Arizona, Bloomberg reported. While Intel was seen as the frontrunner for the contract, there has been criticism from other chipmakers and concerns in Washington about relying too heavily on one company. Additionally, disputes over funding have been a point of contention.

Major funding amid national semiconductor push

The grant is expected to be announced as early as next week and is part of the broader $52 billion in incentives allocated under the CHIPS and Science Act, a law enacted by President Joe Biden in 2022 to revitalize the U.S. semiconductor industry and reduce reliance on Asian manufacturers.

This new funding is in addition to the $8.5 billion in grants and $11 billion in loans Intel received earlier this year under the same program. The company is currently in talks to secure further incentives to support its facilities in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon. However, like other companies benefiting from the CHIPS Act, Intel has yet to receive any of these funds, and the current award is still considered provisional.

Pentagon’s confidence in Intel despite struggles

Despite Intel’s recent financial difficulties, including a disappointing earnings report and lower revenue forecasts that caused its stock to drop, the U.S. government remains confident in the company’s ability to meet its semiconductor needs. Sources say Intel is reassessing its production targets but is more likely to prioritize its U.S. facilities, particularly in Arizona and Ohio, over international projects.

The Pentagon has emphasized the importance of sourcing advanced semiconductors from a U.S. company, and Intel remains the only domestic manufacturer of cutting-edge processors. Rival manufacturers, such as Taiwan’s TSMC and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics, are also building facilities in the U.S. under the CHIPS Act, but their primary operations remain overseas.

Dependency on TSMC and foreign manufacturers

Intel still relies on TSMC for the production of some of its most advanced processors, even as it moves to establish domestic manufacturing capabilities. Discussions in Washington about potentially sourcing chips from foreign manufacturers’ U.S.-based facilities remain ongoing, but these talks are separate from the Secure Enclave program.

It remains unclear which specific chips Intel will produce under the Pentagon contract. While Intel has expressed interest in securing clients like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), it has struggled to convince them to use its manufacturing services. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has urged companies like Nvidia and Microsoft to consider Intel’s upcoming facility in Ohio, though no large orders have yet materialized.

Funding disputes and delays

The Secure Enclave program was initially set to receive $2.5 billion in funding from the Pentagon, but that commitment was withdrawn in February. The Department of Commerce, already overseeing $1 billion in funding, was left to shoulder the full cost. At one point, officials considered integrating Secure Enclave with other commercial production incentives for Intel, but ultimately decided to treat it as a separate initiative.

The delay in funding has not only affected Intel but also other U.S. companies. A planned commercial R&D program was scrapped, forcing the Commerce Department to reject a $4 billion funding request from Applied Materials for a project in Silicon Valley. Efforts to add $3 billion to the CHIPS Act to address these gaps have stalled in Congress.

Intel faces growing pressure

Intel’s struggles raise questions about the U.S. government’s ability to meet its semiconductor goals, including securing a reliable supply of advanced chips for the Pentagon and producing 20% of the world’s cutting-edge processors by 2030. The company has faced declining sales, financial strain, and a loss of market value, prompting its board to consider drastic measures such as splitting its manufacturing division or scaling back global operations.

The delays in government funding have further frustrated Intel, which has resisted providing some of the information requested by U.S. officials seeking to assess the viability of its manufacturing roadmap. The company’s stock hit a historic low in August after a surprise quarterly loss, leading to a credit rating downgrade and the announcement of up to 15,000 job cuts. These developments have sparked concern in Congress, as Intel was seen as a key player in rebuilding the U.S. semiconductor workforce.

Lagging behind in AI market

Despite efforts to catch up, Intel continues to trail rivals Nvidia and AMD in the rapidly growing AI chip market. CEO Pat Gelsinger has established an AI Acceleration Office to coordinate efforts across Intel’s various business units, but the company’s AI sales still lag far behind competitors. Intel expects to generate $500 million in sales from its latest AI chips this year, compared to Nvidia’s tens of billions in revenue from GPUs.

Intel’s challenges have been compounded by significant executive departures, widespread layoffs, and plummeting market capitalization. In stark contrast to Nvidia, which added $1.4 trillion to its market cap in 2023, Intel’s valuation has fallen to $83 billion, down $70 billion over the past year.

Venezuelan authorities announced the arrest of six foreign nationals on Saturday, accusing them of involvement in a plot to overthrow the government and assassinate President Nicolás Maduro.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello stated during a press conference that the alleged conspiracy was orchestrated with the backing of intelligence services from the United States and Spain. He further revealed that over 400 weapons had been confiscated in connection with the operation.

A total of 14 individuals have been detained, including three U.S. citizens, two Spaniards, and a Czech national, according to Cabello. The arrests are tied to what the minister described as a scheme to destabilize Venezuela through acts of violence, targeting Maduro and his administration.

While Cabello did not specify the exact timing of the arrests, he attributed the operation to the CIA and Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI), citing reports from Spanish media.

Search for mercenaries

Cabello disclosed that two Spaniards were recently detained in Puerto Ayacucho, in the country’s southwest, where they were allegedly seeking to recruit mercenaries. He claimed the group was aiming to hire French and Eastern European operatives to carry out an assassination attempt on Maduro.

“We know the U.S. government is linked to this operation,” Cabello alleged, adding that the group had been in contact with mercenaries from Eastern Europe and had sought French involvement in the plan.

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department confirmed that a U.S. military member was among those detained in Venezuela. However, the spokesperson denied any involvement by the U.S. government in a plot to overthrow Maduro and stated that they were working to gather more details about the arrests.

Spain denies involvement

The Spanish government swiftly rejected Venezuela’s accusations. Sources within the government, speaking to the EFE news agency, stated that the two Spanish nationals detained, Andrés Martinez Adasme and José María Basoa Valdovinos, were not connected to Spanish intelligence services.

The Spanish Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Sunday, affirming that the detainees had no affiliation with the CNI or any other state organization. Spain remains committed to a peaceful and democratic resolution to Venezuela’s political crisis, government sources said.

Family members of the two Spaniards, quoted in Spanish media, said the men were tourists from Bilbao with no ties to intelligence services.

Venezuela doubles down on claims

In response to Spain’s denials, Cabello reiterated Venezuela’s position, stating that it was “predictable” that Madrid would distance itself from the alleged plot. He claimed the two detainees had confessed to being part of Spanish intelligence, asserting that they had admitted their involvement in the plan against Maduro.

“Spain will naturally deny it,” Cabello said, adding that the individuals had acknowledged their participation in the operation and had connections to political groups in Venezuela, criminal organizations, and U.S. military personnel.

Cabello identified a U.S. officer, Wilber Josep Castañeda, as the leader of the operation. Castañeda was reportedly arrested in Venezuela on September 1.

Opposition leader implicated

Venezuelan authorities also implicated opposition figure María Corina Machado in the plot. According to Cabello, Machado, a prominent supporter of exiled opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia, was one of the key architects of the alleged scheme.

González Urrutia, a former presidential candidate, has been in exile in Spain since September 8, where he has requested asylum, citing political persecution in Venezuela.

The United States, European Union, and several Latin American nations, including Brazil, have refused to recognize Maduro’s re-election in the July presidential elections.