Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2145842625

Have the Afghan people been forgotten?

20 million are going hungry as frozen funds and equally frozen diplomacy keep this country in a frightening state of limbo.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

While most eyes are turned elsewhere, the situation in Afghanistan continues to worsen. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is indeed a tragedy, but the laser focus with which the United States and its European allies have trained on the Ukrainian cause underscores their double standards when it comes to addressing humanitarian crises around the world, particularly in cases where they bear considerable responsibility — be it in Yemen, Syria, or indeed, Afghanistan.

Today, millions of Afghans lack food and financial means, with the country unable to feed itself or provide essential services, largely due to the roughly $7 billion dollars of Afghan central bank funds currently sitting in U.S. banks, plus more at the World Bank, frozen by sanctions.

The U.S. funds are in part being held up in legal limbo due to lawsuits against the Taliban by families of 9/11 victims, and countersuits by Afghan advocates to give back all of the money to the country.  A recent article by the New York Times cites some of the legal obstacles facing the release of these funds, including a pair of laws from 1978 and 2002 which place restrictions on money linked to organizations designated as “terrorists” — like the Taliban — further complicating the matter since they are the de-facto government of Afghanistan.

With that being said, it was still largely a political decision to block the funds, as indicated by the Biden administration’s controversial announcement back in February that it would allot half the frozen money for the 9/11 families, and the other half for humanitarian aid. Now it is all in a federal judge's hands.

Biden's decision has sparked significant pushback, as some 40 organizations (including some eligible 9/11 claimants) have called on the president to unfreeze all funds being held in the U.S. financial institutions and the World Bank. One such group is Unfreeze Afghanistan, a women-led advocacy organization which has also highlighted other issues facing Afghan civil society, including Afghan teachers and healthcare workers, who have gone unpaid since the collapse of the government and Taliban takeover. 

The group has also suggested alternative payment mechanisms, such as direct payment of salaries to individuals by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), or for finances to be coordinated with non-governmental organizations within Afghan society to ensure transparent delivery and avoid the direct aiding and abetting of Taliban abuses.

On that matter, with their recent slate of government decrees ranging from restrictions on women’s dress and travel, to the segregation of men and women in public venues such as restaurants and parks, it’s clear that this “moderated” version of the Taliban is keen on resuming business as usual when it comes to human rights and tightening its iron-fisted rule in Afghanistan. It’s also an indicator of the continued failure of the U.S.-led policy to isolate the country economically and politically as a means of influencing Taliban attitudes.

This all ties into the broader humanitarian crisis faced by the country, with growing food insecurity, a devastating healthcare shortage, economic ruin, and escalating militant violence. From the Pakistani airstrike of April 16 in the country’s eastern provinces of Khost and Kunar, which reportedly killed up to 47 people, to the multiple separate bombings targeting ethnic Hazaras and members of various religious minorities in the days since, the security situation in the country is becoming increasingly unstable.

What’s needed is the release of money that belongs to the Afghan people, as well as a thoughtfully planned international financial and security arrangement (without military intervention) that will help Afghan society function and strengthen what institutions currently exist in the country.

As far as financial aid, any package provided to the Taliban government should rightly emphasize respect for human rights. Despite the recent crackdown on women’s freedoms, however, there seems to be opposing views within the Taliban movement over issues such as women’s education, as a recent decision by the leadership to close down girl’s secondary schools was reportedly met with disagreement by other Taliban members, according to reports. This, along with other protests within the country show that it won’t be easy for the Taliban’s heavy-handed rule to continue without some checks, however marginal these hopes appear.

But we know now that isolating the country will not contribute to future peace and prosperity for its people, and dialogue should be reopened by the world. Regional neighbors (i.e., Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, India, China) should also be engaged in good faith to help promote Afghan economic development and security guarantees against outside terrorist activity or militant violence internally (ISIS-K, a local ISIS affiliate, has claimed responsibility for several recent attacks).

The tangled geopolitical rivalry at play in Ukraine further complicates all these peripheral matters, as the U.S.-Russia-China triangular dance continues to play itself out in different areas, be it in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, Taiwan, or otherwise. All this emphasizes the need for international diplomacy more broadly, and Afghanistan offers an opportunity for positive cooperation between powers like China and the U.S.

Those familiar with the U.S. embargo against Iraq in the 1990s know the devastation wrought by that cynical policy, with an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children perishing due to a lack of food and essential supplies that the nation was unable to import. 

The near-future outlook for Afghans isn’t very bright, either. A recent announcement that the U.S. is sending another $204 million to Afghanistan for emergency assistance (bringing the total to $720 million since August 2021) is welcome, but a drop in the bucket of what it has sent to Ukraine in just two months. Plus, the Afghans need money to pay salaries and restart the economy. They need their own funds, and not just a band-aid.


Afghans in Herat wait for aid, February 2022. (Shutterstock/afad tuncay)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
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
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.