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 }}
Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, speaks to the media in December 2024.
Syria’s leader declared president, constitution scrapped
Syria’s de facto leader Ahmad al-Sharaa was on Wednesday declared president by a group of top military commanders.
The current constitution was suspended, and al-Sharaa was authorized to form a “temporary” legislative council to govern during a transitional period before elections are held.
The duration of this “transitional period” has not been specified. Al-Sharaa, who led the campaign to topple the Assad regime two months ago, has previously suggested that writing a new constitution and holding elections could take between three and four years.
The big question: The move provides some clarity about the power structures that will govern Syria as it seeks to rebuild its economy and society after decades of dictatorship and more than a dozen years of civil war.
But it heightens the focus on al-Sharaa’s intentions. Skeptics have wondered about his commitment to establishing a pluralistic society in a country marked by sectarian and ethnic divisions. His background is, after all, as a jihadist fighter whose organization, the al-Qaida offshoot Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, remains on the US terrorism list.
In recent years, he has styled himself as a statesman, dropping his nom de guerre, swapping fatigues for suits, and calling for good government.
Now his power has been made official. How will he use it?
A rescue worker searches for victims after a train derailed in District Sanghar in the Sindh province of Pakistan.
Hard Numbers: Train derailment, bombing anniversary, Barbie's billion, winter heat, stunning soccer saves
30: At least 30 people were killed and another 90 injured after a train derailed in Pakistan’s Sindh province on Sunday. The country’s railway system has a notoriously dubious safety record, and the cause of the crash remains under investigation.
25: It has been 25 years since al-Qaida terrorists bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people and injuring thousands. The attacks took place eight years after US troops landed in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
1 billion: "Barbie" finished its third weekend in cinemas with more than $1 billion in global ticket sales, making Greta Gerwig the first solo female director to hit that mark. Warner Bros. says none of its movies have ever sold so many tickets so fast.
100: Despite it being winter in the southern hemisphere, South Americans are sweltering amid a record heatwave, with temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This is another grim reminder of the fast-emerging reality that political leaders must think urgently about how to invest in new technology and infrastructure to help people adapt to a hotter planet.
11: Swedish goaltender Zecira Musovic was the star of the show in a tough World Cup match between Sweden and the United States, scoring 11 saves against 22 attempts on goal before the shootout that eliminated the US from contention. Sweden now advances to the quarterfinals against Japan.Geopolitical fallout over US exit from Afghanistan less than feared
When the US completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, it put an end to a 20-year conflict that had claimed tens of thousands of lives.
But the messy scenes of departure — including a suicide bombing that killed 13 American troops and 170 others — heightened fears that it would allow Afghanistan to become a haven once again for international terrorists and undermine US security partnerships with other countries.
On the first anniversary of the pullout, we asked Eurasia Group senior analyst Ali Wyne what the consequences have been for Afghanistan and the rest of the world.
Have the Taliban shown themselves able to govern and bring stability?
Many Afghans welcomed the end of the 20-year war between the US and the Taliban and the relative stability that followed. But new challenges have arisen over the past year, for it is much easier to rebel than to govern.
The Taliban had a simple raison d’être for two decades: to expel US-led forces from Afghanistan. Now, however, it is tasked with securing diplomatic recognition, cultivating unofficial diplomatic ties with wary governments, and unlocking billions in central bank reserves, to name but a few objectives. It must also contain ISIS-K, the Islamic State’s Afghanistan-based branch, which bitterly opposes the Taliban. Many Afghans who possess the kind of bureaucratic know-how that will be essential to managing these challenges have either fled or been marginalized during the past year.
There are also divisions within the Taliban, as there are in any other government. Some officials fear, for example, that the adoption of draconian policies on education for girls and workforce participation for women will make it harder for Afghanistan to secure the foreign aid that it urgently needs. For now, though, Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and other ideological hardliners within the organization have the upper hand.
Can economic hardship and the rollback in human rights undermine stability?
With the Taliban’s resumption of power, Afghanistan experienced an abrupt cutoff of over $8 billion in annual international aid, equivalent to about 40% of GDP. Exacerbating that shock is an ongoing drought as well as economic headwinds resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The humanitarian situation is dire, with the UN World Food Program estimating that roughly half of the Afghan population is experiencing food insecurity and that a staggering 95% do not have enough to eat. Severe malnutrition, in turn, has increased Afghans’ susceptibility to many diseases and strained an already overwhelmed healthcare system. Many humanitarian and human rights organizations are accordingly urging a relaxation of international sanctions on the Taliban.
Meanwhile, the Taliban’s restrictions on women who seek to participate in the workforce will not only compound Afghanistan’s short-term economic difficulties; they will also limit the country’s medium- to long-run growth potential. One watchpoint worth monitoring is whether ISIS-K attempts to boost its ranks with Afghans who are disillusioned by Taliban rule.
Does the US strike against Ayman al-Zawahiri signal Afghanistan is again becoming a haven for international terrorists?
That the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida’s leader belies its pledge to prevent Afghanistan from reemerging as a safe haven for terrorism. A UN report published shortly before the strike warned that the two organizations have a “close relationship” and concluded that al-Qaida has “increased freedom of action” in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.
US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl testified late last year that ISIS-K might be able to attack the US homeland within six to 12 months and that al-Qaida might be able to do so within one to two years. Confronting a grinding Russia-Ukraine war as well as escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait, the US has a strong incentive to ensure that they do not develop this capability.
Does the strike’s success suggest the US can contain the terrorism risk without a presence in the country?
The US’s ability to gather intelligence and conduct remote military operations has improved significantly over the past two decades. Even as the strike highlights the continued Taliban-al-Qaida nexus, it spotlights this ability as well. Barring another large-scale terrorist attack on the US that is conclusively attributed to organizations operating inside Afghanistan, though, it is highly unlikely that the US would deploy even a small contingent of troops to the country. The real question, then, is not whether the US can contain the terrorism risk in Afghanistan without boots on the ground, but how best it can contain that risk without them.
Has the US withdrawal affected perceptions about its reliability as a security partner?
The impact appears to have been smaller than many observers had feared at the time of the US withdrawal. The Biden administration has mobilized the West against Russian aggression, and both NATO and the EU are newly invigorated; the former is poised to admit two new members, Finland and Sweden, and the latter has granted membership candidate status to Moldova and Ukraine. Similarly, in managing a resurgent China, the US has successfully bolstered existing groupings such as the Quad and launched new partnerships and initiatives (for example, Partners in the Blue Pacific and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework).
Even if one believes that the US withdrawal undercut perceptions of US reliability, it is worth remembering that when the US was bogged down in Afghanistan, many of the US’s European and Asian friends questioned whether it was able to engage with them consistently on issues that were of more pressing concern to them than counterterrorism.
The US’s withdrawal affirms not only that military power can only go so far in achieving political outcomes, but also that narrow missions can easily morph into nebulous undertakings. America’s NATO allies criticized it for not consulting with them more closely as it prepared to depart, and some observers feared that the decision would inflict permanent damage on perceptions of US reliability. One year on, though, that anxiety appears overstated.
The Graphic Truth: Terror outfits based in Afghanistan
Even though the Taliban “control” Afghanistan, several militant groups still operate in the war-torn country. That's underscored by the recent killing of al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, although not all outfits present in Afghanistan are affiliated with the Taliban. We list some of the major militant organizations working out of the country, with regional and global ambitions.
How China could retaliate after Pelosi's Taiwan trip
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How could China possibly hit back over Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan trip?
Well, it was highly unlikely they were going to interfere with her getting onto the island and ditto with her leaving it. But we've already seen announcements of lots of military exercises all around Taiwan, potentially missile tests going over Taiwan through Taiwanese airspace. That would be unprecedented as a provocation. Beyond that, there have been sanctions already on over a hundred Taiwanese companies that provide food into China. I can certainly imagine more limitations on Taiwanese companies doing business with the mainland. And the real question is, do they change the status quo with Taiwan either economically or diplomatically during the Party Congress coming up where Xi Jinping is supposed to get his third term?
I do believe that we are going to see a significant amount of retaliation. The Chinese were very public and very consistent in their warnings. And it feels like from the Chinese perspective, a great loss of face as Xi Jinping is planning to secure his third term.
But Pelosi decided to go anyway. The Americans have the ability to escalate and hit back. Biden administration has warned the Chinese not to escalate. I do think that the Chinese, given their economic challenges right now, are not looking for a massive crisis. But this is going to significantly deteriorate the relations between two most powerful countries in the world. That's what we are looking at right now.
Will the death of the al-Qaida leader shift the dynamic between the US, Pakistan and the Taliban?
I mean, it's a big deal, of course, for any American president to kill al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida and critical deputy even back in 9/11, helping to orchestrate the attacks against the United States at that point. I mean, it's a big deal and it's a big deal to the Americans who were able to pull that off with no collateral damage without having any troops on the ground, making you wonder why it was the US had boots on the ground in Afghanistan for such a long time when they were normally there in principle, not to rebuild Afghanistan, but to ensure that the Afghan government were not harboring terrorists that could launch attacks against the US or its ally. So, anyway, I don't think the dynamic changes because the Taliban has obviously been lying as we all knew about not harboring any terrorist. This leader of al-Qaida was in a property that belonged to a deputy of the leader of the Taliban. It's very obvious that they were helping him and fully aware that he was there and there are going to be more attacks I'm sure from the US going forward. The US considers the Taliban government a pariah. They have frozen their reserves.
There's been a lot of humanitarian outcry about that. This clearly justifies the US position and the Taliban not getting any access to their cash going forward. I think the relationship between the US and Afghanistan will continue to be a very much arms length and antagonistic. And to the extent that the Pakistan government is seen as providing some support and engagement for that, even if you don't have strong open diplomatic relations does mean that Pakistan will also continue to be on the wrong side of US policy. And of course, they're much closer to China these days. So that's not much changing, but certainly entrenchment of the existing US policy.
Finally, with California and Illinois joining New York to declare states of emergency over monkeypox, will the US do better to react this time?
It does not seem that way in the sense that the Americans don't have a great testing protocol in place for monkeypox. Vaccines do exist. It took the US a fair amount of time to acquire them. It shouldn't be a state of emergency. This should be something the Americans, if they were really learning lessons from COVID, would've been on top of immediately with an effort to educate, inform, and contain. And that's not where we are, in part because it is a disease that is harder to transmit. And also where there is an effective vaccine that already is in place. And you're not looking at significant lethality. But what if it were? And the answer to that is we'd be in a much worse place. And it's unfortunate to see that on the back of two and a half years of pandemic.
So that's where we are. I hope everyone's well. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Hard Numbers: Orbán clams up over oil, monkeypox on the move ... ›
- What We're Watching: US kills Al-Qaida leader, Pelosi's Taiwan pit ... ›
- Will she, won't she? The fallout from Pelosi's Taiwan talk - GZERO ... ›
- Symbolism matters — Taiwan's post-Pelosi politics - GZERO Media ›
- Pelosi Taiwan visit reflects extremely strong US Congress support - GZERO Media ›