Follow us on social

google cta
2022-08-01t231106z_2002231278_rc2lhz5tvb28_rtrmadp_3_afghanistan-conflict-usa-zawahiri

Al-Zawahiri killing shows 'over-the-horizon' counterterrorism can work

Despite what critics said during the Afghanistan withdrawal, the US didn't need boots on the ground to take a top terrorist off the board.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Tonight’s announcement that al-Qaeda terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed over the weekend is the product of years of effort and Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice. But it is also important to recognize just how wrong the conventional groupthink was about the limits of post-withdrawal counterterrorism.

It cannot be exaggerated how improbable conventional critics of President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan insisted today's success would be. The prevailing critique of an over-the-horizon strategy was that it would be nearly impossible to conduct effective counterterrorism strikes without continuing a 20-year failed counterinsurgency. Arguing otherwise became a lonely position in Washington. 

The Biden administration first pitched “over-the-horizon” strike capabilities as a way that the United States could manage counterterrorism after the withdrawal by conducting air and drone strikes from bases outside Afghanistan. It was largely received with sneers and criticism. Much of the criticism is valid from a technical standpoint. An over-the-horizon posture is complicated by less human intelligence, extended flight distances for drones and manned aircraft, and numerous other logistical and intelligence limitations. But it is a more sustainable form of risk management that necessarily diverts from the futile task of risk elimination that dominated the U.S. approach to counterterrorism in Afghanistan over the last twenty years. Furthermore, many of the deficiencies of an over-the-horizon strategy were still a reality even with tens of thousands of U.S. troops in-country, albeit at a significantly higher cost.

This weekend’s strike on Ayman al-Zawahiri represents over-the-horizon at its best: eliminating a high value target based on actionable intelligence, likely with pre-approval by the Commander-in-Chief, and potentially with regional support. This should not be conflated with the unhinged permissiveness of past drone wars which saw thousands of civilians killed based on dubious intelligence or none at all. One under-appreciated benefit of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan is that it has forced the U.S. military and intelligence community to truly prioritize threats.


FILE PHOTO: Osama bin Laden sits with his adviser Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian linked to the al Qaeda network, during an interview with Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir (not pictured) in an image supplied by Dawn newspaper November 10, 2001. Hamid Mir/Editor/Ausaf Newspaper for Daily Dawn/Handout via REUTERS/
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
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
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

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.