Iran

Afghanistan: Biden’s Achilles Heel

More fundamentally, his failure to replace Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as head of the peace negotiations reveals he is inclined to continue Donald Trump’s “cut and run” policy, embodied in the February 29, 2020 surrender and withdrawal agreement in Doha, Qatar with the Taliban.

The Agreement does not provide even the slightest fig leaf to conceal the abject nature of the surrender to the Taliban.

By proceeding with the May 1, 2021 withdrawal date established in the Doha Agreement, or even postponing it by months, Biden would fail to recognize that the Taliban have not seriously engaged in “intra-Afghan” negotiations aimed at a peace settlement, and establishing a viable cease-fire, as called for in the Doha Agreement.

Biden is the prisoner of his 2009 thinking. He doesn’t recognize that conditions have changed. He doesn’t recognize that the current U.S. force posture and mission is essentially what he was arguing for in Barack Obama’s 2009 Afghanistan policy review.

If Biden continues on Trump’s “cut and run” course, he will be responsible for Afghanistan becoming another Iran, with the people–including those we have nurtured as advocates of democracy and the rule of law for the last 20 years–living under the harsh dictatorial rule of Islamic religious extremists, as in Iran.

Moreover, surrender in Afghanistan is not likely to enhance his negotiating position with Iran.

Biden must replace Khalilzad immediately, and conduct a fresh and new review of U.S. military and policy options in the region. He should listen to his democratic allies and, above all, to the people of Afghanistan as represented by their elected leaders.

He needs to develop a policy based on the facts on the ground today, and set aside the idea that the U.S. goal should be just to get out of Afghanistan.

Read More





Keeping Track of Trump’s Foreign Policy: From the Kerch Strait to Russian sanctions, Khashoggi, Syria, and Afghanistan

U.S. foreign policy under the direction of a malevolent simpleton The great challenge facing observers and critics of U.S. foreign policy is to keep track…




Dénouement: Details on make-up and advances of pro-Assad forces closing in on last insurgents in Aleppo; Russia and China veto Security Council resolution

Extraordinary details regarding the composition of pro-government forces supporting Bashar al-Assad and their advances in Aleppo are contained in the following article published in Le…


Aleppo — a wrenching epitaph for the failed foreign policy of Barack Obama

Developing See Marc Semo, “Alep-est livrée aux bombardements russo-syriens, dans l’indifférence des Occidentaux; La transition engagée aux Etats-Unis et les élections à venir dans plusieurs…


Personal Takes: Russian war crimes in Syria, appeasement, and disgust

Developing PERSONAL TAKES Once in a while, The Observer reflects on his own personal involvement in world events. Today’s news triggered such a reflection. The…


Cherif Bassiouni, top expert on war crimes, confirms Russians and Iranians, including Putin, responsible for war crimes in Syria if they were aware of operations

Developing See Josh Rogin, “Putin and Assad could face justice for war crimes in Syria, Washington Post, October 9, 2016 (7:53 p.m. EDT). Julian Borger,…


Vice-Presidential debate: Pence pushes Kaine and Clinton on military action in Syria

Developing In VP Debate, Pence Reveals Thrust of Foreign Policy Attack Against Clinton During the Vice-Presidential debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Spence, Spence revealed…



Reasoning from conclusions: Blind hope as the basis for U.S. foreign policy in Syria

Developing See Karen DeYoung, “U.S. calls on Russia and Syria to ground all aircraft in northwest Syria,” Washington Post, September 21, 2016 (8:28 PM). Karen…