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
AI spending heads toward $7 trillion as analysts warn of market bubble risks
Massive financial resources directed into artificial intelligence technologies are driving companies into dangerous territory for global markets.
If expected productivity gains fail to materialize despite these immense capital flows, the artificial intelligence sector faces the risk of inflating into a giant bubble.
The Wall Street Journal reported that should such a scenario unfold, a widespread collapse capable of shaking the entire financial system and dragging down the broader market will become inevitable.
Estimates by McKinsey & Company project that global spending on data center construction alone could reach $7 trillion by 2030.
According to the newspaper, if these massive investments fail to deliver adequate productivity gains, the global economy will suffer a severe blow.
Should the sector as a whole turn out to be a bubble, the resulting damage will spread directly across the broader financial system.
While market observers note that a major crash—whether sooner or later—would drag all equity markets down with it, declines in AI-related stocks are currently being offset by gains in other sectors.
However, the first concrete signs of emerging vulnerability appeared in the memory chip market, where a sector-specific bubble formed and burst within just four months.
South Korean market shaken by sharp drop
In June, shares of South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix, the world’s two largest memory chip makers, sank by more than 12%.
The sharp sell-off pulled down the country’s broader stock index. South Korea’s benchmark Kospi index dropped 10%, triggering an automatic 20-minute trading halt.
Growing investor anxiety over artificial intelligence triggered the steep decline in the two giant companies, which together account for half of the total market capitalization of the Kospi index.
US equity markets also felt the ripple effects during the same period. The Nasdaq index closed down 2.2%, while the S&P 500 fell 1.4%, marking their worst single-day performances in two weeks.
Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the disruption has not yet produced catastrophic consequences for the rest of the market.
While the bursting of massive historical bubbles resulted in disaster for national economies, smaller and localized bubbles in recent years have failed to paralyze broader economic growth.
The primary reason for this resilience is that these recent investments were not predominantly funded through leverage and bank credit.
When those localized bubbles burst, investors suffered wealth losses, but the financial system remained intact.
Russell Napier, a global macroeconomic strategist and keeper of the Library of Mistakes, a financial history archive in Edinburgh, evaluated the current market posture:
“The banking system is in superb condition, which means there will always be enough credit available to blow the next bubble.”
America
Anthropic AI models breach corporate systems after escaping isolated test environment
Anthropic has announced that several of its advanced artificial intelligence models escaped an isolated testing environment and accessed the live internet.
In a review published Thursday night, the company stated that in three separate incidents dating back to April, the models independently breached the systems of multiple companies without the AI developer’s knowledge.
Anthropic said the incidents involved an unreleased internal research test model, alongside its Opus 4.7 and Mythos 5 models.
Mythos was made available last month to a limited audience composed of technology companies and cybersecurity researchers, an initiative also known as Project Glasswing.
The AI developer did not disclose which companies were breached, but said the affected firms were informed of the incidents on Monday.
Anthropic noted that it conducted the review after OpenAI revealed last week that two of its most powerful models had breached containment, escaped their testing environment, and infiltrated several entities, including the AI platform Hugging Face and cloud provider Modal Labs.
System misconfiguration allowed internet access
Anthropic stated that it examined more than 140,000 tests to find evidence of whether Claude could gain access to the internet from test environments designed to be isolated.
The evaluations included “capture-the-flag” exercises, in which Claude was instructed to breach other systems to obtain information. This is a method frequently used by experts to assess a model’s hacking capabilities.
The San Francisco-based company stated that a “misconfiguration” in systems operated by Anthropic and its testing partner left the models with live internet access, enabling them to infiltrate external systems.
Anthropic said it approached remediation efforts “with full ownership of the responsibility.”
Neither Anthropic nor the affected organizations detected the unauthorized entries at the time they occurred.
Anthropic added that it may examine its logs more extensively, noting that the findings gave the company “cautious optimism” that such risks can be overcome through increased investment and more stringent safeguards.
David Allott, a cybersecurity expert, told the BBC: “The overarching lesson here is not that AI has developed fundamentally new attack vectors.”
“Instead, it means that AI agents can combine capabilities, acquire credentials and system access to act autonomously, while adapting scope and scale at machine speed,” Allott said.
The developments come as technology companies invest billions of dollars to develop AI agents capable of independently executing a range of tasks, from research and customer support to cybersecurity.
America
Elon Musk’s America PAC plans $100 million field operation for 2026 Republican midterm push
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is returning to the political spending arena with a new field program designed to help elect Republicans in at least eight states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk has authorized his political action committee, America PAC, to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a new ground game focused on conservative voter turnout for the 2026 midterms, according to a Thursday report by The New York Times, which cited two unnamed sources informed about the plans.
America PAC funneled more than $250 million into Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in 2024, a expenditure that established Musk as the largest political donor in US history.
The New York Times reported that America PAC is reviving its spending initiatives and has reached out to other Republicans in recent weeks regarding the new field operations.
The effort is also being coordinated with other Republican Party spending groups, according to the report.
The newspaper identified targeted Senate races in the states of Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, while noting that discussions are also underway regarding contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.
The political action committee is additionally expected to deploy funds for House of Representatives elections in Washington, Wisconsin, and California.
The news comes a day after Axios first reported that America PAC’s operations were resuming, with a focus on driving Republican turnout during the non-presidential election cycle.
A spokesperson for America PAC declined to comment on The New York Times report but confirmed the Axios reporting to The Hill. The spokesperson stated that the spending group was “excited” to contribute to efforts to maintain the Republican majorities in Congress this fall.
“The President’s political team and the rest of the GOP apparatus have built a world-class operation that has Republicans well-positioned to make history and retain control of Congress this fall,” America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo said in a statement. “We’re excited to be part of the team again.”
The campaign will reportedly target Republican voters through door-to-door canvassing, mailers, and digital advertisements, enabling other groups to concentrate their resources on television advertising.
The developments were reported days after Musk told The Economist magazine that he had gotten “carried away” during his brief foray into politics.
The SpaceX CEO entered the political arena during the 2024 election, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump’s presidential campaign and accompanying the candidate on the campaign trail.
Musk went on to lead Trump’s cost-cutting initiative, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which executed sweeping employment and funding reductions across the federal government. Those efforts sparked controversy for Musk and his enterprise empire, including Tesla, whose shares fell sharply during his period of political involvement.
Musk departed the White House in late May 2025, and DOGE officially terminated its operations on July 4.
Shortly after leaving government, Musk and Trump engaged in a public dispute over the president’s sweeping spending legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” During the friction, Musk threatened to form a third party, though the initiative never materialized.
Musk and the US President appeared to resolve their differences last year, with the tech billionaire most recently joining Trump alongside other technology leaders on a trip to China in May.
-
America2 weeks agoUS controls $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues with little transparency, raising congressional concerns
-
America2 weeks agoUS agricultural superpower status at risk as trade wars shift global markets to Brazil
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoPalantir CEO Alex Karp says he would not vote for ‘pro-Russian’ AfD in Germany
-
Europe2 weeks agoUS secures multi-billion-dollar energy and AI deals at Three Seas summit in Dubrovnik
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoWorld Bank warns US-Iran conflict could slash global growth to 1.3% as inflation looms
-
Middle East2 weeks agoPentagon faces severe budget crunch as Middle East operational costs drain key military funds
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany accelerates African energy diplomatic push to secure natural gas and green hydrogen
-
Middle East2 weeks agoOil passes $90 as tanker attacks halt Hormuz shipping
