America
Does U.S. Afghanistan Policy Have a Future?
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.
America
US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates
The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.
The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.
Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.
Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.
Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:
“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”
The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.
In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.
As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.
This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.
The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.
Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.
Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.
Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.
However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.
Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.
The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.
Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.
Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.
Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.
Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:
“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”
America
Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela
Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.
According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.
One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.
The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.
However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.
Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.
According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.
The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.
The source added:
“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”
David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.
“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.
However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.
“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.
America
US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.
According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.
Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.
A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.
However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.
The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.
De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.
The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.
Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”
However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.
“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.
Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.
While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.
Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.
That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.
A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.
Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.
Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.
The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.
Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.
Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”
-
Middle East2 weeks agoTrump’s Board of Peace drafts first Gaza base contract
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS lawmakers seek terrorist designation for Polisario Front
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO faces severe structural and logistical deficits, Professor Erenel warns
-
Europe2 weeks agoCDU unrest raises doubts over Merz’s future as chancellor
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan set to sign defence pact
-
America2 weeks agoWealthy Americans drive surge in New Zealand golden visa demand
-
Interview5 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia defense agreement: An attack on one will be considered an attack on all
