Follow us on social

google cta
Ashraf-ghani-scaled

Ghani brings Afghan challenges -- and asks -- to Washington today

What he gets from Biden will depend on whether his requests are compatible with the realities of the U.S. military withdrawal.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, who serves as Chairman of Afghanistan’s High Council for National Reconciliation, have traveled to the United States along with other Afghan officials to meet with President Biden, Secretary Austin, and various U.S. officials and lawmakers. 

This is a critical moment for President Ghani to have face time with President Biden that may be increasingly hard to come by. And photo ops and general statements of support from U.S. officials and influential lawmakers provide enticing optics at a time when the Afghan government and security forces are struggling to slow the momentum of an intransigent Taliban. President Ghani and the Afghan government more broadly face several challenges:

— The Taliban has captured dozens of districts, including at least 18 that are strategically important. Some of these districts will be retaken by Afghan security forces but the ability to easily capture outposts without much of a fight has produced a steady stream of Taliban propaganda. This is part and parcel of the Taliban’s war of attrition. Focusing resources on population centers may ultimately make strategic sense for the Afghan security forces but contested districts will continue to fall into Taliban hands.

— The intra-Afghan negotiations that began as part of the U.S.-Taliban agreement have stalled with the Taliban refusing to engage substantively or at all. It appears unlikely that this process can be resurrected at a moment when some Taliban leaders and much of the rank and file believe they are on the cusp of victory.

— Several senior Afghan officials view Pakistan’s support for the Taliban as the most consequential driver of the conflict and would like Washington to take a harsher stance towards Islamabad. However, the United States is likely to prioritize other objectives with Pakistan which range from nuclear security to limited counterterrorism cooperation. In short, Washington is unlikely to turn Pakistan into a pariah state over its support for the Taliban.

— Militias and provincial/regional strong men may align with the Afghan government in its fight against the Taliban but could prove unpredictable and unlikely to take directives from Kabul.

— The Afghan security forces will require continued funding and technical support and one of President Ghani’s primary objectives is to seek guarantees for this aid. 

President Ghani’s ability to advocate for his government will depend on whether his specific requests are compatible with the realities of the U.S. military withdrawal that is underway. The Biden administration’s public responses to these requests are likely to remain non-committal. It makes strategic sense for the United States to continue to provide financial and technical support for the Afghan government and security forces. 

The United States is also likely to keep approximately 650 troops to guard the U.S. Embassy, especially given the legacy of the 2012 embassy attacks in Benghazi. But these U.S. troops are intended to provide security to protect the U.S. diplomatic mission and their mandate should not extend beyond that. 

When it comes to airstrikes to support Afghan security forces things are less clear. U.S. officials have contradicted one another in Congressional hearings, anonymous quotes to journalists, and official statements. The preferred policy of the Biden administration appears to be focused on limited counterterrorism strikes against groups like ISKP and al-Qaeda — not the Taliban. President Ghani may try to coax the Biden administration into committing to U.S. airstrikes in support of Afghan security forces, but this will likely fall on deaf ears. 

Ultimately, a decision to provide airstrikes against a Taliban offensive on a major urban center will be made at that time based on a cost-benefit analysis. Committing to sustained U.S. airstrikes in support of Afghan security forces would be a slippery slope into re-entering the conflict militarily.

Encouraging both sides to find fora for dialogue may offer limited opportunities for the Afghan government and Taliban to discuss a potential political settlement but this will likely be measured in years rather than months. However, it would be a mistake for the Biden administration to reverse course or for President Ghani to make decisions on the presumption that Washington will waffle on the withdrawal at the eleventh hour. 


Ashraf Ghani, President of the Islamic Republic of Afganistan, in 2018. (Gints Ivuskans/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Geo-kleptocracy and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Global Crises

“As everyone knows, the oil business in Venezuela has been a bust, a total bust, for a long period of time. … We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” said President Donald Trump the morning after U.S. forces invaded Caracas and carried off the indicted autocrat Nicolàs Maduro.

The invasion of Venezuela on Jan. 3 did not result in regime change but rather a deal coerced at the barrel of a gun. Maduro’s underlings may stay in power as long as they open the country’s moribund petroleum industry to American oil majors. Government repression still rules the day, simply without Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Russian icebreakers
Top photo credit: Russian nuclear powered Icebreaker Yamal during removal of manned drifting station North Pole-36. August 2009. (Wikimedia Commmons)

Trump's Greenland, Canada threats reflect angst over Russia shipping

North America

Like it or not, Russia is the biggest polar bear in the arctic, which helps to explain President Trump’s moves on Greenland.

However, the Biden administration focused on it too. And it isn’t only about access to resources and military positioning, but also about shipping. And there, the Russians are some way ahead.

keep readingShow less
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.