Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Osama bin Laden sits with his successor Ayman al-Zawahri.
What We’re Watching: US kills Al-Qaida leader, Pelosi's Taiwan pit stop, Yemen holds its breath, tensions rise between Kosovo and Serbs
US kills al-Qaida leader
President Joe Biden addressed the nation Monday night to make an announcement 21 years in the making: the US killed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri in a drone strike in Kabul over the weekend. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man and key architect in the 9/11 terror attacks was killed in the first US attack in Afghanistan since the American withdrawal last August. The operation – a major counterterrorism coup for Biden – reportedly saw al-Zawahri killed at the home of a staffer to senior Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani. A CIA ground team, with the help of aerial reconnaissance, has confirmed the death. “My hope is that this decisive action will bring one more measure of closure,” Biden told loved ones of 9/11 victims. He also warned that the US “will always remain vigilant … to ensure the safety and security of Americans at home and around the globe.” With al-Qaida franchises having cropped up globally over the past decade, the death of Zawahri – who was wary of the brand’s localization and its effect on his authority – will present a challenge for control of the militant group.
Pelosi Taiwan fallout?
We won’t know whether US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan until she lands there or leaves Asia, but US and Taiwanese officials said Monday they expect she will spend a night there. In response, China’s foreign ministry has warned that the People’s Liberation Army “won’t sit by idly” if it decides Pelosi’s visit undermines China’s “territorial integrity.” It’s not that the US and Chinese governments don’t understand the sensitivity of the timing. The Biden administration, which has warned publicly against a Pelosi visit, is well aware that China’s upcoming Party Congress and its importance for President Xi Jinping’s future make this an extraordinarily provocative moment for a Taiwan visit from the highest-ranking US official to go there in 25 years. Beijing understands that in the US system of co-equal branches of government, the House Speaker doesn’t need the president’s permission to visit other countries. They also know that Pelosi probably won’t be speaker much longer, given the outlook for US midterm elections, and that this is probably her last chance to keep a promise to visit Taiwan. Each side understands, but neither Pelosi nor Xi sees a reason to back down. Keep watching this situation closely.
Yemen’s turning point
A four-month UN-sponsored truce is set to expire in Yemen on Tuesday. What happens next remains unclear. More than seven years of war between a government supported by Saudi Arabia and its regional allies on one side and Houthi rebels backed by Iran on the other has created a humanitarian crisis. Some 17 million Yemenis struggle to find food every day, and the war has inflicted so much damage on homes, schools, roads, and hospitals that even if peace takes hold it might take decades to rebuild. If peace does not take hold, beginning with an extension of the expiring truce, it will be because the two sides are still evenly matched militarily and have not surrendered their weapons — and because there is little trust between them.
Tensions rise in Kosovo
Ethnic Serbs living in Kosovo were supposed to switch their Serbian-issued license plates for Kosovan-issued ones this week, but Kosovo’s government has just delayed implementation by a month owing to simmering tensions. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, but tens of thousands of ethnic Serbs living there refuse to recognize the country, which Serbia still sees as its province. The new rules were meant to take hold on Monday, but ethnic Serbs have been protesting and barricading roads with tankers and trucks near two border crossings with Serbia. Police in Kosovo also say shots were fired toward them but that no one was hurt. Fears of rising Balkan instability – with the bloody conflict of the 1990s still fresh on everyone’s minds – led to the postponement. The US and EU have called for calm, and the NATO-led “Kfor” peacekeeping mission is "prepared to intervene if stability is jeopardized."
Osama bin Laden sits with al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri in 2001.
US braces for impact as UN finds al-Qaida resurgent
Al-Qaida is resurging in Afghanistan. The militant group is recruiting, raising funds, positioning itself to conduct long-distance attacks, even upping its propaganda, and remains close to the Taliban.
That’s according to a new UN Security Council report, compiled with intelligence from member states. The report, released by the UN office monitoring international sanctions on the Taliban, has further claimed that al-Qaida’s core – under Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri’s leadership and estimated to be several dozen-people strong – is located in eastern Afghanistan’s Zabul and Kunar provinces, along the border with Pakistan, where the terrorists have enjoyed a “historical presence.” It also noted that some members were reportedly living in Kabul’s former diplomatic quarters, where they have access to the Taliban-run Ministry for Foreign Affairs, though this wasn’t confirmed by the investigators.
A familiar face reemerges
Al-Zawahri’s communications suggest he may be able to lead the group more effectively than before the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. The Egyptian-born physician and deputy to Osama bin Laden has appeared in eight videos since the Taliban took over in August 2021. His most recent production – praising an Indian Muslim woman for her defiance of a hijab ban – was in April and provided the first real proof of life for the 72-year-old in recent years.
The findings come at a crucial time as the Taliban are rolling back freedoms enjoyed by Afghans for the last two decades while grappling with international isolation and a massive humanitarian crisis. Women and girls have been particularly targeted by the Islamist regime, which also faces an insurgency of its own with the growing threat from ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) – the local affiliate of ISIS, an offshoot of al-Qaida but now a fierce competitor of both al-Qaida and the Taliban.
However, the Taliban’s lack of will or capacity to restrain terror groups – whether they’re targeting Afghanistan or its neighbors – is generating regional ripples. Pakistani diplomats say that since the beginning of 2022, more than 100 of their military and border security personnel have been killed in attacks from groups based in Afghanistan. In April, in an attempt to push back against Taliban inaction, the Pakistanis started taking unprecedented, direct action, conducting air strikes within Afghan territory to target the so-called Pakistani Taliban, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, terrorists allowed freedom of movement and action by the new regime in Kabul.
In Washington, moves have been underway for months to tackle the emerging threat of both al-Qaida and ISIS-K. On Wednesday, Pakistani and US security officials – in regular contact since the Taliban takeover – met to discuss cooperation on counterterrorism efforts, including joint operations and intelligence-sharing, rebuilding Washington’s visibility (lost with the pullout), and also finding “creative” ways to handle the Taliban regime, a Pakistani official said. The Taliban are yet to be recognized by a single foreign government, but as the de facto authority in Afghanistan, they must be dealt with for any counterterrorist objectives, insisted the official.
It’s not too bad … yet
While the UN assesses that al-Qaida enjoys greater freedom under the Taliban, it also says the group’s operational capacity is limited – for now – and that the Taliban are holding the terror group back.
“It is unlikely [for al-Qaida] to mount or direct attacks outside Afghanistan for the next year or two, owing to both a lack of capability and Taliban restraint,” the report said while warning that al-Qaida will regenerate that capability and that the Taliban’s commitment to restraining the group is uncertain in the medium- to long-term.
Some regional experts remain skeptical that al-Qaida can pose a real threat. Abdul Basit, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said that al-Qaida’s potency is an exaggeration.
“al-Qaida has been reduced to a former shadow of itself. It lacks a charismatic leader to revive [it] anytime soon,” said Basit, claiming that al-Zawahri doesn’t have bin Laden’s leadership skills. Also, he pointed to something the report corroborated: al-Qaida under the Egyptian physician has not inspired the type of massive international inflow of jihadists expected with the Taliban takeover.
“It does not suit the Taliban to give al-Qaida a free hand in Afghanistan,” he said, noting that Taliban support for the terrorist group would likely pave the road to a US return to the region – not with ground troops, but with an “over the horizon” counterterrorism footprint.
Pakistani security officials, with the advantage of proximity, say they have evidence the Taliban have “accommodated” al-Qaida and instructed them to “lay low.” Terrorism analysts like Asfandyar Mir, a senior expert at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, agree with Islamabad’s assessment but question how long the Taliban will be able to exercise such control.
“al-Qaida is there in Afghanistan, has the Taliban’s help to remain in the country, and continues to steadily build up. Yet it is also under strong instructions from the Taliban to not plot attacks from Afghanistan,” he said.
“But a break in the Taliban’s relationship with the international community or their internal political jostling can make things more favorable for al-Qaida,” Mir added.
Though they have fought together on the battlefield against the US and its allies, there is a fundamental difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida. The former sees itself as an Afghan resistance movement, dominated by the values of ethnic Pashtuns. It doesn’t have transnational aspirations and professes to only implement its harsh version of Islam within Afghanistan. The latter, meanwhile, has a larger, more ambitious transnational agenda. It is expansionist and export-oriented by its very nature, with the goal of establishing a global caliphate.
With ISIS-K, a competitor with similar ambitions, on the rise – estimated by the UN to have swelled to 4,000 members – the question then becomes: how long can the Taliban continue to restrict al-Qaida from its plotting within Afghanistan, or when might al-Qaida defy the Taliban to pursue its operations independently?
While the UN says that al-Qaida and ISIS-K are not capable of mounting an international offensive before 2023, Afghanistan’s internal political dynamics will also weigh into the more experienced terrorist group’s calculus, ability, and intent to attack. Al-Qaida, after all, has a history of striking internationally when the Taliban are strong nationally.
“al-Qaida may also decide eventually that enough time has passed and the Taliban’s government is stable enough to survive a deniable terror attack,” said Mir.
This comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media. Subscribe for your free daily Signal today.
Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro adjusts his protective face mask during a news conference to announce measures to curb the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Brasilia, Brazil March 18, 2020.
What We’re Watching: Bolsonaro’s COVID crimes, Mali calls al-Qaeda, Facebook gets a facelift
Bolsonaro accused of crimes against humanity: A long-running Senate investigation in Brazil has found that by downplaying the severity of COVID, dithering on vaccines, and promoting quack cures, President Jair Bolsonaro directly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. An earlier version of the report went so far as to recommend charges of homicide and genocide as well, but that was pulled back in the final copy to a mere charge of "crimes against humanity", according to the New York Times. The 1,200-page report alleges Bolsonaro's policies led directly to the deaths of at least half of the 600,000 Brazilians who have succumbed to the virus. It's a bombshell charge, but it's unlikely to land Bolsonaro in the dock — for that to happen he'd have to be formally accused by the justice minister, an ally whom he appointed, and the lower house of parliament, which his supporters control. Still, as the deeply unpopular Bolsonaro limps towards next year's presidential election, a rap of this kind isn't going to help.
Sup al-Qaeda — Mali: The West African nation of Mali has long had a problem with jihadist violence, and French soldiers deployed there since 2013 have barely made a dent. Now, the military-civilian transitional government that has run things since last year's coup may try something different: ask local Islamic clerics to talk on their behalf to al-Qaeda's main affiliate in the country. They could find some common ground: the government seem open to sharia law and kicking out all foreign troops in exchange for peace. Former colonial power France, meanwhile, says it won't conduct joint military operations in any country that negotiates with jihadists, but Paris' failure to quell jihadist violence means the French now have little leverage with Bamako. Interestingly, the peace talks are being floated just as Mali is mulling a Russian offer to send 1,000 mercenaries to fight al-Qaeda — which the French are fiercely against, and will likely be scrapped if the government cuts a deal with the jihadists. More broadly, whatever happens in Mali will have ripple effects across the entire Sahel region.
The artist formerly known as "Facebook": Faced with a growing chorus of criticism about his company's unchecked market power, its corrosive impact on political discourse, its harm to kids, and its propensity to both spread dangerous lies and threaten free speech, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is doing the obvious thing: he's changing its name. That's right, in the coming days, the social media giant is set to unveil a new handle of its own, according to a scoop by The Verge. The name change won't affect the core social media app itself, but it will become the primary moniker for the broader conglomerate, which Zuckerberg wants to focus on developing the "metaverse" and other new technologies. This is similar to what Google did in 2015, when it rebranded itself as Alphabet or, if you like, to what Kanye West did two days ago when he rebranded himself as "Ye". Whether Zuck's move will take some of the regulatory heat off of Facebook is anyone's guess, but in the meantime, what do you think he should call the new company?
US national security in the 20 years since 9/11
Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, many people hoped that the death of Osama Bin Laden would signal an end to America's role as the de facto world police. Instead, 20 years later we are seeing the impact of US national security policy play out once more in Afghanistan. The Taliban is now back in control, a local ISIS group has claimed responsibility for the bloody attack on August 26, and big questions remain about what America's war there actually accomplished. America's image abroad has been hurt by high civilian casualties to torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, while policies implemented in the US in the name of security included huge (and at times even illegal) surveillance dragnets of US citizens and gave law enforcement unprecedented powers. But the United States has avoided another catastrophic 9/11-style attack on our soil. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer explores the question: is the US actually safer today than before the towers fell?
Watch the episode: Is America Safer Since 9/11?
The alternative versions of 9/11
As pivotal as they were, there was certainly nothing inevitable about the September 11th attacks — or their aftermath. Here we imagine five separate scenarios for how things might have gone differently.
The social media 9/11
As the wounded Twin Towers belch smoke and flames into the sky, social media lights up with videos from people within the buildings, documenting their desperate final moments as they go "live." Within hours of the towers' fall, a Staten Island man uploads a shaky hand-held clip of the North Tower's collapse. The clip purports to show that explosives were used to weaken key structural points of the building, hastening its fall. Algorithms instantly spirit this lie to millions of other users, while thousands of anonymous trolls, in the US and abroad, begin fanning the flames of a conspiracy theory about who was actually responsible. By the time President Bush shouts through a bullhorn at Ground Zero three days later that "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" it's not clear who "us" is. An anguished America is deeply divided about what happened, confused about what the government intends to do in response, and mistrustful of the mainstream media who seem to be towing the government line.
Of course, conspiracy theories and deep political divisions emerged in the years after 9/11 even without social media — but they bubbled up slowly and eccentrically, rather than with the furious immediacy made possible by smartphones and even smarter algorithms. If a similar attack were to occur today, would there be any real unity at all in the aftermath?
Drafting off of 9/11
On September 18th, 2001, just a week after the attacks, President Bush, riding a wave of patriotic unity and fervor, signs a new law reinstating the military draft for the first time in twenty-eight years. As the United States prepares to launch a retaliatory strike in Afghanistan against the Taliban and its al-Qaeda houseguests, tens of thousands of American men between 18 and 25 receive draft cards — they must either report for military service, or do a year of civic service. The stakes of the Global War on Terror, then in its infancy, are immediately clear for everyone, even across America's deepening geographic, political, and socioeconomic divides. There is broad support for the Afghanistan mission, but as the Bush administration begins laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq, there is more skepticism from the public. Because of that, the mainstream media applies more scrutiny to the administration's claims about WMDs, and the linkages between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Does the Iraq invasion end up happening? And, years later, is America a less polarized place because of the draft?
The Taliban hand over bin Laden, US doesn't invade Afghanistan.
Less than 24 hours after al-Qaeda attacks America, the Taliban don't even wait for the US to come knocking. They immediately offer to hand over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's leaders to avoid an American invasion and a war they know will end with yet another foreign power occupying Afghanistan for years. Once in US custody, bin Laden and his lieutenants are sent to the US military base in Gauntánamo, Cuba, where they are interrogated for months before a secret trial. Meanwhile, the Taliban hold onto power, but only because the leader of their main enemy, the Northern Alliance, was killed by al-Qaeda two days before 9/11.
Does not getting bogged down in Afghanistan — and later Iraq — make it easier for the US to actually win the Global War on Terror? Do the Taliban stay in power in Afghanistan? And what happens to al-Qaeda once its leaders vanish?
The US does attack Afghanistan, but with a clear plan and exit strategy.
After the dust settles on the ruins of Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon, President Bush tells the nation he'll follow his dad's recommendation to respond to 9/11 like the US did to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago. America will seek a UN resolution authorizing a US-led coalition to attack Afghanistan with the sole purpose of capturing al-Qaeda's leaders and putting them on trial in the United States. America wants to do things by the book, but is not keen on a lengthy legal process at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which cannot hand down the death penalty. US forces get ready to strike Afghanistan with a coalition of almost 100 countries, many of them Arab states angry at the Taliban for helping al-Qaeda commit such a massacre.
How would a truly multilateral, Gulf War-style plan have changed things in the Global War on Terror? And would backing from Muslim-majority countries have made a difference? What would have happened to Afghanistan after a US-led military campaign that ends without America as an occupying power?
It never happened.
On the morning of September 7, 2001, President Bush convenes a press conference with newly appointed FBI chief Robert Mueller and CIA director George Tenet. They announce that a massive terrorist plot against the United States has been uncovered and thwarted. So far, more than a dozen nationals of Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been arrested in three different states for planning to hijack airplanes and fly them into several, as yet unknown, targets along the East Coast of the US.
If the whole thing had never happened, what would have come next? Let us know what you think — if you do, be sure to include your name and location as you'd like them to be cited, just in case we decide to publish.
"Next 9/11 is on Biden’s watch”: Rep. Mike Waltz on US leaving Afghanistan
Not everyone thinks that President Biden's decision to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan by 9/11/21 is a good idea. Conservative Congressman Mike Waltz (R-FL), a combat-decorated Green Beret with multiple tours in Afghanistan, thinks that the US still needs to maintain a small presence in the country to avoid incurring "massive risks." In a spirited discussion with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, Waltz, who served as counterterrorism advisor in the George W. Bush administration, argues, "The next 9/11, the next Pulse Night Club, which is right on the edge of my congressional district, the next San Bernardino, that's now on Biden's watch. He owns it with this decision." Their conversation is featured in the upcoming episode of GZERO World, which airs on US public television starting Friday, April 23. Check local listings.
- The slow US retreat from Afghanistan - GZERO Media ›
- What does a US troop withdrawal mean for Iraq? - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Fukushima ... ›
- Podcast: Rep. Mike Waltz’s case against ending the war in Afghanistan - GZERO Media ›
- Afghanistan’s next generation: a student shares her perspective on the US withdrawal - GZERO Media ›
- Can Biden recover from his Afghanistan debacle? - GZERO Media ›
- Can Biden recover from his Afghanistan debacle? - GZERO Media ›
Afghan security forces kill senior Al-Qaeda leader Abu Muhsin al-Masri
Al-Masri is believed to be Al-Qaeda's second-in-command.
The slow US retreat from Afghanistan
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, US President George W. Bush demanded that Afghanistan's Taliban government surrender Osama bin Laden and end support for al-Qaeda. The Taliban refused.
On October 7, US bombs began falling on Taliban forces. NATO allies quickly pledged support for the US, and US boots hit the ground in Afghanistan two weeks later.
Thus began a war, now the longest in US history, that has killed more than 3,500 coalition soldiers and 110,000 Afghans. It has cost the American taxpayer nearly $3 trillion. US allies have also made human and material sacrifices.
Though the Taliban government quickly crumbled, its fighters kept fighting. A Taliban insurgency continues, and its forces are now believed to control nearly 20 percent of Afghan territory. Almost half of Afghan land is "contested."
The Taliban is militarily stronger today than at any time since the start of the war, and there are now US soldiers serving in Afghanistan who were not yet born on September 11, 2001.
The dilemma remains
A large-scale US effort to defeat the Taliban everywhere in Afghanistan would prove costlier than the American public, and therefore any US president, is willing to bear.
- The US-backed Afghan government still depends on coalition troops and US air support to keep the Taliban at bay.
- All sides know that US and NATO forces will leave one day.
- Washington can extract promises from the Taliban, but not much else. Once US-led coalition forces leave, there will be nothing to prevent a civil war that kills many innocent people, because there is no consensus within Afghanistan today on how the country should be governed, and none of the warring factions will have an incentive to lay down their weapons.
- And if the Taliban emerges from a new civil war victorious, there's little to prevent its leaders from again sheltering terrorists.
There is a plan to end the war. Taliban leaders signed a deal with coalition forces in February 2020 that committed them to halt attacks on coalition forces and Afghan civilians, and to cut all ties with terrorist groups. In return, the US and NATO promised to remove the last of their troops by May 2021.
Taliban forces have not killed an American soldier since then, but its troops continue to carry out attacks on Afghan cities and towns to try to extend their control of territory. Direct Taliban negotiations with the Afghan government have shown progress but no concrete results.
To leave in seven months, US forces will have to accelerate the pace of packing up. That's a signal for the Taliban that they are free to seize more ground, bolstering their bargaining power and giving them new incentives to wait the Americans out.
When foreign troops leave, Afghanistan is probably headed for civil war. That's what happened when Mikhail Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops in 1989. The bloodbath is likely to be repeated, because there are still many well-armed factions in Afghanistan, and because Pakistan, India, Russia, Iran and other outside powers will back their own proxies. None of these countries wants a vacuum of power in Afghanistan.
Lessons? The Taliban enabled the deadliest foreign attack on US soil in more than 200 years, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan enjoyed overwhelming US public support. Osama bin Laden was killed in May 2011, and al-Qaeda is no longer a single coherent fighting force.
A poll taken last month found that two-thirds of Americans supported President Trump's February 2020 deal with the Taliban to end the war. Fewer than 10 percent oppose the idea. But the war hasn't prevented the likelihood of large-scale bloodshed inside that country, and Afghanistan may again become a haven for well-organized terrorists.
So, what lessons should future US leaders draw from the American experience in Afghanistan?
- "Next 9/11 is on Biden’s watch”: Rep. Mike Waltz on US leaving Afghanistan - GZERO Media ›
- Afghanistan’s next generation: a student shares her perspective on the US withdrawal - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Whose troops are still in Afghanistan? - GZERO Media ›
- Has the Taliban changed since the 1990’s? - GZERO Media ›