Afghan economic collapse would benefit terrorists

UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres has warned that an Afghan economic collapse would occur if assets weren’t unfrozen, saying the collapse would be beneficial to terrorist groups in the area.

"We need to find ways to avoid a situation that would be catastrophic for the people and, in my opinion, a source of instability, and an action, gift for terrorist groups still operating there," Guterres said. 

After the Taliban came into power, Afghanistan was cut off from its US$10 billion assets abroad and US$440 million in emergency reserves it has with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

"At the present moment the UN is not even able to pay its salaries to its own workers," Guterres said.

Guterres’s comments came after Deborah Lyons, UN Secretary General’s special representative for Afghanistan, told the Security Council there would be “a severe economic downturn” if the funds are not released.

"The economy must be allowed to breathe for a few more months, giving the Taliban a chance to demonstrate flexibility and a genuine will to do things differently this time, notably from a human rights, gender, and counter-terrorism perspective," Lyons said.

The funds have been held from the group to have leverage over the Taliban, but Lyons said safeguards can be put on the money to ensure it is used correctly.

Palestinian Authority slams Israel for opposing US consulate in Jerusalem

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has condemned Israel for opposing the reopening of the US Consulate in Jerusalem, which had previously served as a de facto diplomatic mission to the Palestinians. 

Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh urged the United States to fulfill its promises to the Palestinians and speed up the reopening of the consulate.

 “We think it’s a bad idea,” Foreign Minister Yair Lapid told reporters last week in response to the US plan to reopen the consulate. “Jerusalem is the sovereign capital of Israel and Israel alone, and therefore we don’t think it’s a good idea.”

The PA Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Israeli stance does not serve the peace process and disrupts American and international efforts to build confidence and relaunch negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.”

It condemned the statements of Lapid and other Israeli officials opposed to the reopening of the consulate, which was merged into the US Embassy in Jerusalem by the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

The ministry also condemned “pressure” from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Lapid on the US administration to backtrack on its decision to reopen the consulate.

According to the PA Foreign Ministry, the Israeli position is in the context of the “Israelization and Judaization of Jerusalem, ethnic cleansing of the residents of Jerusalem and attempts to change the historical and legal status of the city.”

It accused Israel of working to sabotage the efforts of the Biden administration to revive the peace process between the Palestinians and Israel.

Responding to Bennett’s recent remarks in which he was quoted as saying he would not meet with PA President Mahmoud Abbas because of the latter’s efforts to prosecute Israelis for “war crimes” before the International Criminal Court, the PA ministry said, “Those who fear trial before the International Criminal Court must immediately stop committing more violations and crimes against the Palestinian people and their homeland.”

“Naftali Bennett continues to repeat his statements and stances that are hostile to peace and reject any political process with the Palestinian leadership,” it added. “The ministry warns against Bennett’s misleading campaigns and statements, which aim to gain more time in favor of perpetuating the occupation and settlements. Bennett is selling illusions to all parties in exchange for calm and keeping his government in power, while maintaining his expansionist colonial project.”

Afghan debacle to cast shadow over transatlantic security

In February, President Biden declared, “We would repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Seven months later, his bungled Afghanistan pullout has left US alliances bruised and battered. Repairing the damage will not be easy. 

The sudden US withdrawal showed callous disregard for its allies. This was compounded by the administration’s Pollyannaish response to the international deluge of criticism that followed.

It is being said openly that the US administration failed to comprehend the ownership stake which many European allies retained in a secure and democratic Afghanistan. The Germans, for example, deployed 150,000 soldiers to Afghanistan from 2002- 2021, many for repeat tours. Berlin’s decision to join the US-led effort was not easy. For historical reasons, Germany is extremely cautious about overseas military deployments, and getting the mission extended year over year was tortuous and politically taxing.

Yet the Germans and other allies stood with the US year over year. Last year, NATO’s Resolute Support (RS) mission to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces counted 16,000 troops from 38 allies and partner nations.

Yet Biden decided to pull all US forces from Afghanistan unilaterally, leaving allies – many of whom had recently committed additional troops to RS at the behest of the US – feeling as though the rug had been pulled out from under them.

Some allies, such as Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom, reportedly sought to sustain a presence in the country but were unable without US support, in particular American air support. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried desperately to find out what the US was doing, but the White House ignored his calls for 36 hours. If the administration didn’t bother to talk to Britain, something deeply dysfunctional was happening.

Biden’s precipitate action created a crush of desperation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, leaving Europeans stranded and allies like France and the UK resorting to dangerous, clandestine rescues of their own citizens from the streets of Kabul.

Now, many analysts say, Taliban are back in charge and flush with billions in abandoned western equipment and weapons. Afghanistan will soon be a haven for transnational terrorists once more. Even Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledges, “you could see a resurgence of terrorism coming out of that general region within 12, 24, 36 months.”

The allied reaction has been scathing. Armin Laschet, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union, called the Afghanistan withdrawal “the greatest debacle that NATO has seen since its foundation.”

Calling it “the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez,” Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee added, “We need to think again about how we handle friends, who matters and how we defend our interests.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “For those who believed in democracy and freedom, especially for women, these are bitter events.”

Europe’s disillusionment and anger with Biden and the US is understandable. They remember how President Obama’s Iraq withdrawal led to a flood of refugees, the rise of ISIS and years of terror attacks. They are bracing for a repeat.

Last week, the EU began quickly drawing up plans to boost aid to neighboring Iran and Pakistan in hopes of holding back the tide of refugees.

Rotting credibility may lead adversaries to wonder whether an attack against the NATO alliance would be met with full US resolve and commitment. In some corners of Europe, the inability to sustain an independent European force in Afghanistan is already leading to renewed calls for an autonomous EU military.

Staunching the damage requires a sustained effort to get beyond trite speeches and show that our alliances matter. The Biden administration should reverse its requested defense cuts, which just further erode US credibility.

The US has to establish a permanent presence in Eastern Europe. It will have to invest in desperately needed Arctic capabilities. To improve NATO it will have to go back towards basics, collective defense of the member states. Unleash the power of the market through the Three Seas Initiative to help infrastructure blossom in Eastern Europe, while drowning out Russian and Chinese efforts to make inroads.

These are just a few of the many steps that should be taken to restore allies’ faith in the US. The US needs to shore up its European alliances. It has tools to do that and just show the will to do and stick to it.

Can Hezbollah be savior of Lebanon?

The Lebanese people, regardless of sect or component, welcomed the decision, and at a time when the Arab Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have not taken any steps to help the Lebanese people despite their support for Lebanon, Iran became the Lebanese salvation card.

Iran is trying to position itself as a fuel supplier to Lebanon to empower its Lebanese proxy. The goal is to force Lebanon to become dependent on Iran and then all the gas and fuel going to Lebanon will come through Hezbollah, which can then provide it to allies and friends.

Opponents of Hezbollah say that Iran’s goal is to impoverish Lebanon, destroy its middle and upper class, encourage its Sunni and Christian community to emigrate so that Hezbollah can grow in power and that all that will remain is a hollowed-out Lebanese state that is a province within a larger Hezbollahstan that is more powerful than Lebanon.

They also allege that Iran has been doing this for decades, slowly helping Hezbollah swallow Lebanon and create a parallel state and economy. Hezbollah has its own extra-judicial armed forces, a massive illegal armed militia with 150,000 missiles. Hezbollah sends fighters to Syria and conducts Lebanon’s foreign policy. Hezbollah has its own telecommunications network. It is able to control voting for the presidency and premiership. It also has a parallel construction, banking, and even supermarket network. Now it will be the supplier of fuel to Lebanon.

A report by Iran’s Tasnim media, "The Iranian ships, the triangle of resistance that shattered the American hegemony," lays out the Iranian regime's approach. Iran’s media is linked to the government and it parrots the government’s agenda. “Iran's fuel exports to Lebanon to resolve the country's crisis are currently making headlines in the Middle East and Western media,” the report says. It notes that the ships, making their way via the Suez Canal to Lebanon, are a “point of hope for the country.” Nasrallah said the Iranian ships would arrive soon.

 “The important point is that the import of gas from Egypt to Lebanon must be done through the territory of Syria, which is not possible without the consent of the Syrian government, and the United States must obtain the consent of Damascus, which requires the reduction of sanctions against Syria or it is the general abolition of Caesar Law,” says Tasnim.

In essence, Iran now knows that the fuel weapon can be used to force Lebanon to be dependent on Iran and its allies Hezbollah and Syria. Iran wins either way, either through bringing ships of “salvation” to Lebanon or by getting the US to aid the Syrian regime.

Iran suspects that the US wants to prevent the Iranian oil and gas shipments. “The Americans are in a paradoxical situation - on the one hand, they intend to prevent the import of Iranian fuel to Lebanon, and on the other hand, sanctions against Syria will continue,” the report says.

"The Zionist regime, which along with the United States is considered one of the biggest victims of Iran's fuel imports to Lebanon, has preferred to remain silent for the time being and has not even uttered its usual threats against Iranian ships, but the Zionists fear this action can be clearly seen in the media reports and comments of the regime's experts.”

Iran should be monitoring Israel’s reaction closely. The report notes “Israel's silence on the arrival of Iranian fuel ships in Beirut,” and also says the arrival of fuel “will increase Hezbollah's popularity in Lebanon and expand Iran's national influence in Lebanon, which means the failure of all the projects of Washington and Tel Aviv against the Lebanese resistance.”

The fuel weapon is now Iran’s main priority. The goal is to build up Hezbollah. “The success of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah in rescuing the Lebanese people from the fuel crisis once again introduced him as a savior for all Lebanese and a leader who is working hard to resolve the country's crises, as opposed to the real face of some Lebanese politicians who it became clear to everyone that they were involved in aligning the positions of the West and the United States in the siege of Lebanon and in creating crisis and sedition inside the country,” Tasnim reported.

The point is that Hezbollah should be perceived as “saving” Lebanon while the West is seen as harming Lebanon. Meanwhile, the opposition to Hezbollah in Lebanon is weakened.

This Janus-face use of Hezbollah, where Hezbollah is responsible for Lebanon’s economic collapse and benefits from it by making Lebanon dependent on Iran, is the same model Qatar used with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It empowered the Taliban to take over Afghanistan and also gained credit from the West for “helping” Afghans flee.

Iran alleges that conglomerates in Lebanon include companies that hoard goods and which are controlled by the US. Iran is thus positioning itself as warring with the US economically in the region. Iran has a new deal with China that may be part of the reason it now sees the economy as a frontline. Hezbollah has created a new equation according to which Lebanese could turn to the East to resolve their economic crisis, led by the Islamic Republic of Iran and then Lebanon. It can operate freely in the commercial and economic spheres and gradually get out of American control.

Iran argues that its enemies in Lebanon include Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Lebanese Forces head Samir Geagea. Hezbollah assassinated Hariri’s father, who was also prime minister. Iran accuses Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of laying “siege” to Lebanon.

A Lebanese delegation went to Syria and asserts that this “unprecedented move shows that the Americans were unwittingly forced to reduce pressure on Damascus and Beirut. During the meeting, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stressed that he was ready to provide any support to the Lebanese brothers.” Iran wins either way is the narrative.

Iran claims the US made a decision to get Lebanon to bring gas from Egypt to Lebanon through Syria. This paves the way for Hezbollah to redouble its efforts to break the US brutal siege of Lebanon, and this could even affect the border demarcation talks between Lebanon and occupied Palestine, and perhaps even use Iranian companies to extract Lebanese gas and oil.

The border issue likely relates to demarcating water borders off the coast. The move could also pave the way for countries such as Russia, Iran, and China to invest in Lebanon and take the Lebanese economy out of Western control.

Iran argues that this defeat of the US is linked to the defeat of the US in Afghanistan which shattered American hegemony and could be an incentive for other nations in the region to relinquish control by Washington.

Iran sees a tectonic shift in the region. This is big news for Israel because if Iran has successfully engineered an economic war by which Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are empowered, then Iran will likely use this leverage to further entrench itself in Syria and Lebanon in order to threaten Israel.

Iran has shown its cards that it has a long-term economic goal stretching from China via Afghanistan to Iran and then through Iraq to Lebanon. This is the wider impact of the fuel war currently being waged.

Afghan Caretaker Government

Taliban have appointed Mohammad Hasan Akhund, a close aide to the group’s late founder Mullah Omar, as head of Afghanistan’s new caretaker government. The list of cabinet members announced by Chief Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid on Tuesday was dominated by members of the group’s old guard, with no women included.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the head of Taliban’s political office, will be the deputy leader.

 Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of the founder of Haqqani Network, has been named Interior Minister.

Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, son of Mullah Omar has been named Defence Minister.

Hedayatullah Badri is Finance Minister.

Amir Khan Muttaqi, a Taliban negotiator in Doha, is named Foreign Minister.

“The Islamic Emirate decided to appoint and announce a caretaker cabinet to carry out the necessary government works,” said Mujahid, who named 33 members of “the new Islamic government” and said the remaining posts will be announced after careful deliberation.

Speaking at a news conference in the Afghan capital, Kabul, Mujahid stressed the cabinet was an “acting” government and that the group will “try to take people from other parts of the country”.

Akhund, the acting Prime Minister, is on a United Nations sanctions list. Hailing from Kandahar, Akhund was previously the Foreign Minister and then Deputy Prime Minister during the group’s last stint in power from 1996 to 2001. He is the longtime chief of the Taliban’s powerful decision-making body Rehbari Shura, or leadership council.

Haqqani, the new Interior Minister, is the son of the founder of the Haqqani network, designated as a “terrorist” organization by the United States. He is one of the FBI’s most wanted men.

Reporting from Kabul, Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford said many of the appointments involved “old faces”.

“It’s also important to say that a lot of these names, the vast majority of them are actually Pashtun and are not taking into consideration, arguably critics would say, the vast great ethnic diversity of this country.”

Commenting on the Taliban’s announcement, Obaidullah Baheer, of the American University of Afghanistan, said it did not do “their cause for international recognition any favours”.

“The amount of time spent wasn’t on discussing or negotiating inclusivity or potential power sharing with other political parties. That time was spent on knowing how to split that pie amongst their own ranks,” Baheer told Al Jazeera from Kabul.

The group had promised an “inclusive” government that represents Afghanistan’s complex ethnic makeup – though women are unlikely to be included at the top levels.

In a statement on Tuesday, Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, the Taliban’s supreme leader, said the new government will work towards upholding Shariah law in Afghanistan.

“I assure all the countrymen that the figures will work hard towards upholding Islamic rules and Sharia law in the country,” Akhundzada said.

He told Afghans the new leadership would ensure “lasting peace, prosperity and development”, adding that “people should not try to leave the country”.

“The Islamic Emirate has no problem with anyone,” he said.

“All will take part in strengthening the system and Afghanistan and in this way; we will rebuild our war-torn country.”

In response to Taliban announcement, the United States said it was concerned about the “affiliations and track records” of some of the people named to government.

“We also reiterate our clear expectation that Taliban ensure that Afghan soil is not used to threaten any other countries and allow humanitarian access in support of the Afghan people,” a State Department spokesman said in a statement.

United Nations spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters in New York that only a “negotiated and inclusive settlement will bring sustainable peace to Afghanistan”.

Countries reluctant to accept Afghan refugees

Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has triggered tough measures from countries in the region and beyond to stem an expected refugee inflow. Governments from Islamabad to Ankara and Tehran have bolstered border restrictions in anticipation of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Kabul.

Those actions and similar curbs signaled by Western countries have highlighted an emerging tension between claims of international sympathy for Afghan refugees and the reality on the ground. Governments are worried that refugees could start to pour out and exacerbate political and social problems created by previous influxes.

Caught in the middle of this conundrum are Afghans who have escaped to Iran, in the hope of bringing their family over the border and possibly further afield.

Turkey is "facing an increasingly intensifying Afghan migration wave coming via Iran," President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on the day the Taliban captured Kabul. The rapid seizure came two weeks before the complete withdrawal of US troops from the war-torn country they had been stationed in for nearly 20 years.

Turkey isn't the only nation in the neighborhood trying to avoid refugee inflows. Iran has closed its border with Afghanistan and returned refugees, according to a Tehran newspaper. Pakistan's army claims to have sealed all irregular crossings from Afghanistan, though domestic media have reported increased human trafficking across the border.

Unless Taliban decides to try to stop all Afghans from leaving, the end of the US involvement in Afghanistan is going to create more refugees from a country that already produced millions when it was occupied by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Any new trickle or flood of refugees will include people who couldn't get on US or other evacuation flights from Kabul, people who fear for their lives, and others desperate because of economic hardships.

The UNHCR has predicted up to 500,000 Afghans could flee this year, leading him to call for borders to remain open and for more countries to share "this humanitarian responsibility" for helping refugees. Iran and Pakistan already host a combined 2.2 million registered Afghans. Iran needs help because of the "critical situation" it faces with the pandemic.

Pakistan, too, will likely end up more with refugees, despite rebuffing US requests to host more. Islamabad -- seen as close to the Taliban -- cites an inability to pay for the upkeep of more refugees on top of the millions.

According to a source in Pakistan's border authority, about 8,000 Afghans crossed into Pakistan on one day alone through Chaman crossing, where Afghans with a visa or a national identity card, or those previously registered with the Pakistani government as refugees, are allowed to cross.

Some countries in the region with interests in Afghanistan have offered limited, and short-term, help. The United Arab Emirates has agreed to temporarily host 5,000 evacuated nationals who will go to third countries, following a request from the US. The UAE, along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have called for peace and political stability in Afghanistan.

Another country that's been involved in rebuilding Afghanistan over the past two decades is India, which hosts more than 15,000 Afghan refugees from long ago. As of March 2021, a total of 41,315 refugees and asylum-seekers were registered with the UNHCR India, with Afghans making up the second-largest subgroup, at 37%, behind those from Myanmar, at 54%.

New Delhi has said it would help Afghanistan's minority Hindu and Sikh community members to come to India, and stand by a number of other Afghans "who have been our partners in the promotion of our mutual developmental, educational and people-to-people endeavors," the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement.

There are concerns that the refugees' temporary stays could become quasi-permanent if other countries don't offer them a new home and they can't go back to Afghanistan.

While saying the European Union cannot abandon people in immediate danger in Afghanistan, Interior Ministers said in a statement last week that the 27-nations in the bloc "stand determined to act jointly to prevent the recurrence of uncontrolled large-scale illegal migration movements faced in the past, by preparing a coordinated and orderly response."

The biggest change in Israel in the past year

The biggest change in Israel in the past year was the departure of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after 12 consecutive years remaining in power. The people who made it happen are Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, they did it as a team. 

There is no doubt that they have had a massive influence on Israel in the past year and the changes are likely to continue.

Bennett and Lapid have a history of getting Netanyahu to do things he doesn’t want to do. Back in 2013, the “brothers,” as they were nicknamed due to Bennett’s penchant for calling everyone that, banded together so that Bennett would get into the coalition, despite Netanyahu not wanting him there, and so the haredi parties would stay out, as Lapid insisted. That coalition was a rocky one – even Bennett and Lapid joked they were downgraded from brothers to cousins – and only lasted a year and a half.

Fast-forward to 2021, when Israel held an unprecedented fourth election in two years. Lapid was in the “Never Netanyahu” camp, and had been since Netanyahu fired him from the Finance Ministry in 2014. Bennett said he was leaving his options open; he didn’t think Netanyahu was disqualified, but he was open to other options if Netanyahu was not able to get majority backing.

Though a majority of the Knesset’s seats went to right-wing and religious parties, Netanyahu, once again, could not cobble together a coalition. Parties that once worked with him refused to do so again for myriad reasons: he was under indictment on multiple charges of corruption; he was beholden to the haredi parties; he had broken one promise too many. The parties that were willing to work with him weren’t all willing to work with each other, like the far-right Religious Zionist Party, which refused to be part of a coalition that was dependent on the Islamist Ra’am Party. Bennett and Netanyahu negotiated, but even if Yamina joined the coalition, the numbers just didn’t add up to 61.

Bennett shifted to talks with his former brother Lapid, head of Yesh Atid, the largest party in the anti-Netanyahu bloc. And since Lapid needed Bennett, as well Ra’am, to form a coalition, they were able to make big demands. In Bennett’s case, it was to be prime minister in a rotation agreement, and to go first. Lapid is due to take his place in mid 2023.

With Netanyahu out of the way, the duo got to the business of leading what they call the “change government.”

In many ways, one can look at this government and the one we had several months ago and sigh, “plus ça change.” The Delta variant has Israel in a state of pandemic deja vu – though the COVID-19 vaccine continues to be highly effective in preventing severe illness – and the prime minister and health minister are still constantly urging Israelis to get jabbed. Though, Lapid and Bennett have decided, unlike Netanyahu, to actually engage with the Biden administration on ways to counter Iran, the mullahs’ regime is still moving forward with its nuclear plan and the West is mostly undeterred from trying to negotiate with them despite their aggression across the Middle East, and there have been mysterious power outages and fires in Iran. The incendiary devices still fly in from Gaza and Hezbollah is still threatening us with its missile stockpiles to the north. The price of housing is on the rise and the cost of food has not gone down, etc.

Bennett and Lapid are undeniably different from what came before them. The most obvious change is, of course, in the name and face at the helm. But there’s also a change in attitude. While it’s true that it takes an incredible amount of hubris for someone who only won seven seats in the last election to even think he could be prime minister, this government is structurally immune to the kind of concentrated power that Netanyahu had cultivated. With such a diverse coalition and such a small party within it, Bennett can’t just do what he wants or amass more and more authority under the Prime Minister’s Office, because if he goes too far, if his policies become too partisan, it will threaten the government’s delicate fabric. The same goes for the ministers of Yesh Atid, Meretz, Labor, New Hope, and Blue and White. So far, Lapid and Bennett have handled this delicate dance with relative aplomb, seeming to be perfectly in sync, whether they are talking about Iran and Hezbollah or the pandemic. They thank one another and give each other – and other ministers – credit, something the previous government lacked, as ministers would anonymously grumble.

The government that Bennett and Lapid are leading has the potential to make changes, for better or for worse, far beyond its spirit of partnership. The Health Ministry received a major, desperately needed budget increase. Necessary reforms in the state-funded rabbinate are on the agenda again, with haredim out of the coalition. Climate change is getting more government attention than ever before. The finance minister has leaned into “nanny state” taxes meant to change individual behaviors.