The United States has reportedly paid millions of dollars to secure the release of 66-year-old American citizen George Glezman, who was held in Taliban custody for two years. However, the fate of more than ten other American citizens, including Mahmood Habibi, remains uncertain. Former U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief negotiator of the deal, has once again misled the U.S. government, as the Taliban gained significant leverage without making substantial concessions in return. The release of one American has not resolved the broader issue of Taliban detentions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of U.S. negotiations.
While the U.S. insists that Habibi is being held by the Taliban, the group has never acknowledged his presence in Afghanistan, denying any involvement in his case. In September last year, former CIA intelligence officer Sarah Adams revealed that Habibi was reportedly handed over to al-Qaeda by the Taliban and now faces imminent execution. Despite these alarming reports, there has been no clear progress in securing his freedom. The Taliban’s refusal to confirm his whereabouts further complicates diplomatic efforts, leaving his family in anguish and the U.S. government in a difficult position.
Once again, the U.S. has spent millions of dollars with little meaningful achievement. The Taliban continue to exploit hostage negotiations for financial and political gain while avoiding accountability for their actions. This pattern of concessions without firm demands for reciprocity only strengthens the Taliban’s position. The U.S. must take a stronger stance, applying greater pressure rather than rewarding the Taliban’s tactics. Without a more forceful approach, the lives of Habibi and other American detainees remain in jeopardy.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce acknowledged that the Trump administration remains “deeply concerned” about the well-being of the remaining American hostages.
Mahmood Habibi, an American citizen, was taken from his vehicle near his home in Kabul on August 10, 2022, along with his driver, according to the FBI.
Habibi’s brother, Ahmad Shah Habibi, expressed gratitude for the efforts of special envoy Adam Boehler and former envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, stating in a letter that they “confronted the Taliban about their refusal to admit they are holding my brother.” However, he called on the U.S. government to take a stronger stance, emphasizing that the issue cannot be brushed aside with token diplomatic exchanges.

The Shadow of the Doha Agreement

Zalmay Khalilzad’s presence during the negotiations for Glezman’s release has not gone unnoticed. The former envoy remains a deeply controversial figure, blamed by both Afghans and Americans for his role in the 2020 Doha Agreement, which facilitated the U.S. withdrawal and ultimately led to the Taliban’s return to power.
Many argue that Khalilzad’s negotiations were short-sighted and failed to account for the Taliban’s duplicity, leading to devastating consequences for Afghanistan and its people. His involvement in the latest hostage release has reignited concerns that he continues to push policies that prioritize short-term diplomatic wins over long-term security interests.

Can the US Afford to Trust the Taliban?

As the Trump administration navigates this complex diplomatic landscape, one thing remains clear: trusting the Taliban has never proven to be a viable strategy. The group continues to harbor terrorist organizations, violate international obligations, and detain American citizens without accountability.
Rather than rewarding the Taliban with financial incentives or political recognition, the U.S. must exert stronger pressure—both diplomatically and economically—to secure the release of all American hostages and ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a breeding ground for terrorism.

Nvidia’s CEO said that the company, which is trying to withdraw its supply chain from Asia in the face of tariff threats from US President Donald Trump, will spend hundreds of billions of dollars for chips and other electronic products manufactured in the US in the next four years.

The massive spending forecast of the world’s most valuable semiconductor group follows billions of dollars of US investment plans announced by other technology companies, including Apple, as the impact of Trump’s “America First” trade policies ripple through the global economy.

Nvidia’s CEO and co-founder Jensen Huang told the Financial Times (FT), “Overall, we will likely supply a total of half a trillion dollars worth of electronic products over the next four years, and I think we can easily see ourselves producing a few hundred billion of that here in the US.”

Huang said that the leading artificial intelligence chip manufacturer can now produce its latest systems in the US through suppliers such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Foxconn, and that it sees an increasing threat of competition from Huawei in China.

At Nvidia’s annual developers conference this week, Huang introduced the new generation of artificial intelligence chip, Vera Rubin, and outlined plans to create clusters of millions of interconnected chips that will require a large power supply in huge data centers.

Huang said he believes the Trump administration can accelerate the development of the US artificial intelligence industry. The CEO said, “Having the support of an administration that cares about the success of this industry and does not allow energy to be an obstacle is an extraordinary result for artificial intelligence in the US.”

This month, TSMC announced that it would invest $100 billion in its chip production facilities in Arizona, in addition to the $65 billion investment decided under the Biden administration.

Huang said that Nvidia’s latest Blackwell systems are now manufactured in the US, adding, “TSMC’s investment in the US allows us to take an important step in our supply chain flexibility.”

In recent years, America’s largest technology companies, including Nvidia and Apple, have become heavily dependent on TSMC’s state-of-the-art chip manufacturing facilities in Taiwan.

Huang said, “The most important thing is to be prepared. At this point, we know that we can manufacture in the US, we have a sufficiently diversified supply chain.”

The Nvidia executive argued that if any disaster threatens production in Taiwan, it would be “uncomfortable but not a problem.”

While Nvidia still generates billions of dollars in revenue from China, it faces renewed competition from Huawei, whose Ascend AI chips have recently made progress.

Huang said, “Huawei is the most challenging technology company in China. They have conquered every market they have entered.” According to Huang, US efforts to restrict the Chinese technology company “ended badly,” given Huawei’s continued success.

Saying that Huawei’s presence in the field of artificial intelligence is increasing every year, Huang said, “We cannot assume that they will not be a factor.”

Intel, the only US company that can theoretically produce pioneering chips similar to Nvidia’s, has faced serious difficulties in the casting business. The leadership gap at Intel was filled last week with the appointment of Lip-Bu Tan as CEO.

Huang denied reports that Nvidia was in talks to form a consortium with companies such as TSMC to invest in Intel, and avoided committing to using US chip manufacturing services as part of this ‘onshoring’.

“We regularly evaluate casting technologies and continue to do so,” said Nvidia’s CEO, adding that they are also reviewing Intel’s chip packaging services.

Referring to Intel’s ability to be competitive in advanced chip technologies, Huang said, “I am confident that Intel has the ability to do this.”

Huang also added that “Intel’s success and prosperity” is important, and “But it takes some time to convince yourself and each other that a new supply chain needs to be established.”

The 25% tariff on steel and aluminum products imposed by US President Donald Trump’s administration on Wednesday is expected to create upward pressure on prices for approximately $150 billion worth of imports, negatively impacting the profits of American automakers and other companies.

The US imports about one-fifth of the steel it consumes. More than 20% of this import by weight comes from Canada, followed by Brazil at 16%, and the European Union at 7%, with Japan ranking seventh at 4%. Canada is also the largest supplier of aluminum to the US.

Because the direct cost of tariffs falls on importers, this will mean higher costs, especially for manufacturers in the US auto industry.

US-based Wolfe Research anticipates the 25% tariff will drive the price of steel products up by as much as 16% above the 2024 average. Aluminum prices, which are already trending upward, are expected to nearly double.

Nomura Securities research analyst Anindya Das estimates the impact on automakers’ fiscal 2025 operating profits from a 10% increase in steel and aluminum prices compared to the 2024 average. According to this analysis, American players Ford Motor and General Motors will face a hit of approximately 3% to 4% if they cannot pass on their costs through higher prices.

Toyota Motor will experience a smaller decline of 0.5%, while the impact on Subaru, which conducts a large portion of its production in North America, will be around 2%.

Some parts manufacturers affiliated with Toyota bring steel from Japan for use in their US production facilities, and there have been calls for the company to cover the higher costs resulting from the tariffs.

A Toyota executive stated, “Tariffs are a factor outside their control, so we will respond appropriately.”

Japan has pushed to be exempted from the tariffs. “Steel and aluminum products from Japan do not harm the national security of the US,” Cabinet Chief Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters on Wednesday. “On the contrary, high-quality Japanese products are difficult to substitute and are necessary to make the US manufacturing sector more competitive, and greatly contribute to US industry and employment,” he added.

According to EU-based Global Trade Alert, the tariffs announced by the Trump administration last month cover a total of 289 categories, excluding overlaps between the steel and aluminum lists. These items, which also include kitchen and sporting goods, accounted for approximately 4.5% of the US total last year, with $151 billion in imports.

China was the largest importer at $35 billion, followed by Mexico at $30.6 billion, the EU at $20.3 billion, and Canada at $17.1 billion. Japan ranked seventh at $7 billion. When EU members were counted as separate countries instead of a single bloc, 27 economies had exposures exceeding $500 million.

To avoid tariffs, steel and aluminum exports previously destined for the US may be sold in other markets instead. Jakob Stausholm, CEO of Anglo-Australian iron ore miner Rio Tinto, said last month that selling aluminum in other markets such as Europe was an option.

Tadashi Imai, chairman of the Japan Iron and Steel Federation and president of Nippon Steel, recently stated that the biggest concern is that the tariffs “contribute to the market collapse caused by China’s excessive exports.”

With China’s economy declining, steelmakers are selling products at low prices elsewhere that cannot be absorbed by the domestic market. If they face higher barriers in the US, these goods could flow to other countries.

The US is also the world’s largest exporter of scrap iron and steel, and rising scrap prices leaving the country are likely to reverberate in the global market.

A representative from Japanese aluminum manufacturer UACJ said, “The short-term impact will be small, but it could be larger in the long term.”

Although the company generally produces products for the US domestically, it imports some products with special requirements from Japan in small quantities. According to UACJ, starting alternative production in the US could take three to four years.

Other companies are turning to completely different materials. Coca-Cola stated last month that it would switch some packaging from aluminum to plastic if the tariffs came into effect.