Follow us on social

google cta
2010-09-14t120000z_237546757_gm1e69e1oml01_rtrmadp_3_afghanistan-bank-e1644856421174

Biden's $7 billion Afghan heist

The president's order diverting frozen funds to American families of 9/11 victims will only make the humanitarian and economic crises in Afghanistan worse.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

With his Executive Order redefining Afghanistan’s Fiscal Reserve as a slush fund to be disbursed on his whim and with the stroke of his pen, President Biden has taken what may well be the final step in an experiment gone amok. The U.S. first attempted to make Afghanistan into a Western democracy, instead installed a kleptocracy, made Afghans endure 20 years of violence and then left in a whirlwind of chaos. With Biden’s latest move to deprive Afghanistan of its monetary reserves, the nation is likely to come full circle, turning once again into a failed state that, in the absence of economic recovery, will become a breeding ground for extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.

Of the country’s reserves, $7 billion were “parked” in U.S. financial institutions. This is normal procedure for developing countries, with the, now in retrospect, very ironic purpose of keeping funds in a secure place. Watching this latest Biden debacle, Central Banks of multiple countries are now surely contemplating pulling their monies out of U.S. financial institutions to protect them against arbitrary dictatorial disposal.

After the Executive Order was issued, Da Afghanistan Bank — Afghanistan’s U.S.-built Central Bank — issued a statement that was both judicious and, to an American reader, embarrassing. It offered a measured, dumbed down 101 on what a monetary reserve is and what a Central Bank does. One might have hoped that a U.S. president, or at least his advisers, would know this, but evidently not.

From their tutorial: “As per the law and relevant regulations, Federal Exchange Reserves…are used to implement monetary policy, facilitate international trade and stabilize the financial sector. The real owners of these reserves are the people of Afghanistan. These reserves were not and are not the property of governments, parties or groups and are never used as per their demand and decisions…The Foreign Exchange Reserves are managed based on international practices.”

President Biden, however, announced that he was assigning half of the money, $3.5 billion, to settle ongoing claims by 9/11 families against the Taliban for hosting Al Qaeda. The other half will go to international NGOs that provide aid to Afghanistan, a move that was pitched as an act of amazing generosity. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that it shows America will always stand by Afghanistan.

But a closer look shows America is not standing by Afghanistan, but instead draining Afghan’s coffers. The current situation in Afghanistan is as follows. When the Taliban took power in August 2021, after the calamitous U.S. withdrawal and the instant caving of President Ghani and the Afghan National Army, Biden ordered the freezing of Afghan assets and accounts. Instead of experiencing a “peace dividend” now that active warfare had ceased, and being able to start slowly rebuilding houses, homes, businesses and lives, the Afghan economy went into freefall. 

With no cash in the Central Bank, savings could not be withdrawn and salaries could not be paid. Most trade ground to a halt. International agencies and NGOs were unable to help very much, because they, too, could not transfer money into the country and could not withdraw their deposits since there was not enough currency in circulation. The UN and humanitarian groups began to issue dire warnings about the severity of this year’s winter, the depleted food supplies as a result of an unusually long drought, and the inability to import food and fuel due to sanctions and frozen assets. While pledges were made by donors, almost always, the pledges fell well short of the enormous needs and only a fraction of pledges end up being fulfilled. Besides, delivery of aid by international institutions with their enormous overhead is a wasteful, expensive and inefficient method that does nothing to make recipients self-sufficient or give them hope for their future.

Once the United States decided to withdraw and leave Afghans to their fate, the right thing to do was to at least give them back their property and with it, a fighting chance. To allay concerns about possible Taliban misuse of the funds, banking professionals have proposed releasing the money in monthly tranches. Monitors would check exactly where that money goes and what is done with it. The moment anything seems improper, a freeze could instantly be reinstituted.

If their Central Bank could stabilize the currency and the exchange rate, inject liquidity into the system and get the banking system as a whole back on an even keel, organic economic recovery could commence.

But as it stands now, this man-made economic collapse is crushing a vulnerable population at the most vulnerable moment in its recent history. More than 40 percent of Afghans are below the age of 14. If there is no work to be had, their older brothers will be open to recruitment by ISIS, or will make their way across the borders into neighboring countries and from there, join the refugee stream towards Western Europe. 

It may satisfy the vindictive impulses of some to see the Taliban preside over a population sinking into misery and disorder, but let’s examine what we are actually doing here. We are punishing 40 million people because we don’t like the Taliban. We are holding responsible for 9/11 a population whose majority was not even born in 2001 and who certainly bear no blame. In the name of benefiting 9/11 families, we are seeding the ground for the next 9/11 and disgracing our own principles of justice. 

After World War II, the United States was remarkably generous towards a population that arguably could have been held more to blame for elevating, electing, and cheering for a genocidal dictator. A Marshall Plan allowed for Germany and Austria to rebuild their industries and economies, repair their devastated cities and bring their families back to good health. The Biden Plan, by contrast, aims to turn Afghanistan into a failed state and to turn its population into a nation of beggars. 

After the humiliating U.S. exit from Afghanistan, Biden’s decision to freeze and then redistribute the nation’s reserves was a political move designed to show his Republican opponents how tough he can be on the Taliban. But a political move that will lead to more starvation and chaos cannot be allowed to stand. Already, legal teams are looking at how to block the $3.5 billion from being awarded to 9/11 families.

The NGO Unfreeze Afghanistan has issued a call urging all NGOs not to accept any of the other $3.5 billion allocated for “humanitarian aid.” And people in both Afghanistan and the United States are organizing protests and petitions to rescind this order. Even 9/11 family members are weighing in. Barry Admunson, who lost his brother in the 9/11 attack and is part of the group called 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, is advocating against Biden’s decision. “We can’t bring our loved ones back,” he told us, “but we can save the lives of people in Afghanistan by advocating that the Biden Administration release this money to its rightful owners: the Afghan people.”


Afghan people walk past a Kabulbank branch in Kabul September 14, 2010. Afghanistan's central bank has stepped in to take control of the troubled Kabulbank, its governor said on Tuesday, after suspected irregularities raised concerns over the country's top private financial institution. REUTERS/Andrew Biraj (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: BUSINESS)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions
Top image credit: Roman Samborski via shutterstock.com
Popular YouTuber discovers how corrupt the Pentagon budget is

Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions

Military Industrial Complex

A new report finds that lawmakers added nearly $34 billion to the Pentagon’s procurement and research accounts for FY2026, through 1,090 individual program increases, many of which the Defense Department did not even request funds for.

Although individual program increases are not earmarks, they serve a similar function. Formal earmarks themselves were temporarily banned in 2011 to curb lawmaker-driven runaway spending, then reintroduced in 2021 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as “Community Project Funding,” and “Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS)” in the House and Senate respectively — and subject to transparency requirements, where lawmakers must associate themselves with the earmarks they propose.

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.