Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2025655802-scaled

Why is Washington collectively punishing the Afghan people?

The decision to freeze nearly $10 billion in government assets has put an already impoverished country on the brink of state collapse.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Afghanistan is facing a major economic and humanitarian crisis, and the U.S. has it within its power to prevent at least part of the approaching disaster. 

The Biden administration’s decision to freeze nearly $10 billion in Afghan government assets has put an already impoverished, suffering country on a disastrous path to mass poverty and starvation, and it must move swiftly to release these assets. It is understandable that the administration does not want to be seen as “rewarding” the Taliban after it seized control this summer, but that is not a good enough reason to keep these funds frozen. Refusing to unfreeze these assets will impose a terrible punishment on tens of millions of ordinary Afghans. 

Ending the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan this year was the appropriate course of action, but that should not mean that the U.S. simply washes its hands of Afghanistan and allows its people to suffer from famine and want when our government can avert the worst. The U.S. has an obligation to free up the financial resources that the Afghan people desperately need to live. Failure to do so amounts to inflicting collective punishment on the people of Afghanistan, and our government will share in the blame for the many preventable deaths that follow. 

According to the U.N. World Food Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization, an estimated 22 million people, more than half of the population in Afghanistan, face acute food insecurity this winter. Afghanistan was already suffering from a serious drought, and the Taliban takeover in August has led to a cutoff of outside aid funding. When a country that has depended heavily on international aid and imports for decades is cut off from both, economic and humanitarian catastrophe is bound to be the result. In their report on the crisis last month, Frontline quoted Ibrahim Bahiss, a consultant on Afghanistan with the International Crisis Group: “The freezing of the national reserves and the drying up of all types of aid to the country has sent financial shockwaves in the country, and the economy is on the brink of collapse.” Freeing up the reserves to finance imports is essential to stopping the Afghan economy from shuddering to a halt.

Obaidullah Baheer, a lecturer at the American University in Afghanistan, called on the Biden administration to release the frozen assets in The Washington Post:

“It is counterintuitive to expect sanctions to incentivize autocratic states to change their behavior. The lack of a democratic process means the general population that feels the hurt has no means to influence the regime to change. Rather than pushing the population away from the ruling elite, sanctions end up pushing the population into the arms of the regime to provide them with basic needs. Sanctions do not encourage the spirit of liberty but create ripe circumstances for further subjugation.” 

Releasing the frozen assets is critical because Afghanistan’s available currency reserves have almost run out. When that happens, imports will grind to a halt and the value of Afghanistan’s currency will deteriorate quickly. Even if essential goods are available, they will soon become unaffordable for the vast majority of the population. It makes no sense to let this foreseeable and preventable nightmare to unfold, but the Biden administration is refusing to budge. Max Fisher noted in his report for The New York Times, “Mr. Biden’s Treasury Department announced recently that it had no intentions of lifting the restrictions driving the crisis.” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo recently testified to this effect before the Senate Banking Committee, and the administration has given no indication that it is rethinking its position.

Diplomats and experts have been sounding the alarm about the crisis for weeks. Former U.N. envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide criticized the administration’s position earlier this week: “The U.S.-led opposition to releasing frozen Afghan financial resources simply does not make sense. First, the U.S. abandoned the country and handed it over to the Taliban. And now the Afghan people are punished with a lack of money to avoid a humanitarian disaster and economic crises.” 

Fatima Ayoub, the policy director at Crisis Action, was even more emphatic last month: “I don’t know [how] much louder or more often I can say this: because of U.S. restrictions on the banking sector the Afghan economy is collapsing. Millions of people will die if this problem isn’t fixed in order to get cash and liquidity into the system.” 

Dartmouth Prof. Jason Lyall summed up the dire situation: “Afghanistan is quietly sliding into one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history. Wracked by 40 years of war, now drought, famine, & collapsed economy. 97% of Afghans will be living on <$2 day by 2022. U.S. must release the $10 billion it holds in Afghan assets now.” The crisis in Afghanistan illustrates how U.S. financial restrictions can cause terrible devastation by denying another country access to its own money.

The Biden administration’s stubbornness on Afghanistan’s frozen assets stands in sharp contrast with their decision earlier this year to reverse the Houthi foreign terrorist organization designation for humanitarian reasons. In that case, the administration recognized that the civilian population would pay a steep price if the designation remained in place as humanitarian aid and trade disappeared. Despite carping from hawkish critics, the administration did the right thing to avert a humanitarian catastrophe that sanctions would have created. Yemen’s humanitarian crisis has obviously not ended, but it could have been much worse if they had not moved quickly to remove the designation. The crisis in Afghanistan is equally urgent, and the potential loss of life is just as great. How many more Afghan deaths is our government willing to cause? 

The Taliban is the de facto government in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. For the sake of the people of Afghanistan, the U.S. must acknowledge this reality and stop punishing the Afghan people by withholding the resources they need to survive. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein put it recently, “it’s absolutely nonsensical to negotiate a deal with the Taliban only to suffocate the country financially from afar.” Attempting to strangle authoritarian regimes into submission always causes massive harm to ordinary people, and the regimes usually just grow stronger and tighten their control over the country by exploiting the scarcity created by outside restrictions to their advantage. 

The U.S. lost the war in Afghanistan. The president correctly determined that it was not in the American interest to keep our forces in harm’s way any longer in an unwinnable war. The U.S. cannot fix most of Afghanistan’s problems and should not try to do that, but it can act to avert a humanitarian catastrophe now. Our government has already inflicted enough damage on Afghanistan. It would be unforgivable if it chose to plunge that country into a preventable famine when it could have done something to stop it.


Kabul, Afghanistan, August 1 2021, refugee children after the collapse of the country in August 2021 by the Taliban in the North of the country (Trent Inness/shutterstock)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
US Navy Arctic
Top photo credit: Cmdr. Raymond Miller, commanding officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96), looks out from the bridge wing as the ship operates with Royal Norwegian replenishment oiler HNoMS Maud (A-530) off the northern coast of Norway in the Norwegian Sea above the Arctic Circle, Aug. 27, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Cesar Licona)

The rising US-NATO-Russia security dilemma in the Arctic

North America

An ongoing Great Power tit-for-tat in which U.S./NATO and Russian warships and planes approach each other’s territories in the Arctic, suggests a sense of growing instability in the region.

This uptick in military activities risks the development of a security dilemma: one state or group of states increasing their security presence or capabilities creates insecurity in other states, prompting them to respond similarly.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less

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.