President Biden made the right strategic decision on Afghanistan. Here’s why.
On August 11, President Biden was riding high. The Senate had passed not only the $1 trillion bipartisan agreement on infrastructure, but the $3.5 trillion budget blueprint for the lion’s share of the Biden domestic policy agenda: education, seniors, childcare, climate change, and much more. It all pointed to victory on Capitol Hill.
Two weeks later, by August 25, Biden had been plunged into the biggest crisis of his presidency: the complete collapse of Afghanistan and evisceration of plans for an orderly withdrawal from that country. 13 soldiers killed, many more wounded, in the worst loss of life by US forces in Afghanistan in a decade.
Also shocking was the intelligence failure that upended how Biden wanted to see the war concluded and Americans brought home safely. As the Washington Post reported Sunday:
“In June, U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that the Afghan government would hang on for at least another six months. By August, the dominant view was that the Taliban wasn’t likely to pose a serious threat to Kabul until late fall.
The outcome stunned top U.S. officials, several of whom had been on vacation when the weekend began, having expected the pro-Western government to hang on for weeks, if not months or even years longer.”
The President met the plane carrying their bodies when it arrived in Delaware, and it was an occasion of overwhelming grief
And there may be more murderous acts before the evacuations are complete. As Biden warned on Saturday: “The threat of terrorist attacks on the airport remains high. Our commanders informed me that an attack is highly likely in the next 24-36 hours.”
Even in the most monstrous atrocities, however, there will be ugly politics – especially in Washington. Israel’s Prime Minister Naftali Bennett struck a high chord of meaning in his meeting with Bide on Friday. “The American service members lost their lives on a mission to save other people’s lives, and that’s the very definition of courage and sacrifice.”
But that comfort does not last long
From the Republicans, there are calls for the resignation of Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Several Republicans are calling for Biden to be impeached.
Western allies are questioning the leadership and judgment of President Biden and his foreign policy team and are wondering how steadfast the US under Biden will really be.
And there is criticism from some Democrats. Rep Jamie Raskin was a stalwart in the impeachments of Donald Trump. “Up until the point of Afghanistan, people were very impressed by the organization and seriousness and maturity of the Biden presidency and its administration. Whether it fundamentally tarnishes that or not remains to be seen.”
The end of the war in Afghanistan is a part of Biden’s legacy as president – but hardly its totality
Ronald Reagan was scorched in the Iran-Contra crisis and the deaths of 241 Marines in a terrorist truck bomb attack in Beirut.
Obama was hit hard by fallout from Libya and Syria as was Gerald Ford in the fall of Saigon. But that is not what their presidencies are principally remembered for. Other presidents were defined by historic foreign policy failures: Jimmy Carter and the hostages held by Iran, Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, George W Bush and Iraq.
This is because nothing matters more than passing the domestic policy agenda
At home, and for what Biden wants to deliver to the American people, it simply does not matter, as long as Democrats in Congress are united, whether Biden lost political capital because of Afghanistan — because nothing matters more than passing the domestic policy agenda. The past two weeks in Afghanistan have no bearing on the vote on any Democrats on Biden’s domestic initiatives. And they hold the power to enact it.
If they fail to execute this year on a Biden agenda they strongly support, they will suffer truly immense political losses in the midterm elections next year. That, and not Afghanistan, is what will define Biden’s legacy – and theirs.
In Short:
– Aden International Airport closed amid rising Saudi-UAE tensions, stranding passengers and highlighting the Yemen crisis.
– Saudi airstrikes targeted STC positions, escalating the conflict as Saudi Arabia and UAE’s interests increasingly clash.
Yemen’s Aden International Airport closed on Thursday due to rising tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), stranding many passengers. This shutdown highlights an escalating crisis between the two Gulf nations over control of Yemen’s resource-rich eastern provinces. Military operations backed by Saudi Arabia resulted in multiple fatalities.Air traffic was suspended following new flight restrictions imposed by Yemen’s internationally recognised government, which is supported by Riyadh. Instead of compliance, Yemen’s transport minister, aligned with the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC), announced a total shutdown, leaving travellers in difficult situations, especially those needing urgent medical care.
The aviation discord exemplifies a larger divide fracturing the Saudi-led coalition involved in the Yemen conflict. Recent Saudi airstrikes targeted an STC military camp in Al-Khasah, resulting in numerous casualties. Saudi-backed forces initiated a military campaign aimed at reclaiming control over territory occupied by the STC.
Gulf Powers
The situation escalated when the STC seized extensive regions in Hadramout and Al-Mahra provinces. Saudi Arabia publicly condemned the UAE’s activities as a threat to its national security and demanded troop withdrawal. In response, the UAE refuted the claims and prepared to withdraw its forces, although the STC has remained entrenched in its positions.
The current conflict marks a significant public feud between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. They have collaborated since 2015 to combat the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, but their diverging interests have increasingly placed them in opposition.
UAE stock markets experienced mixed results on Friday, reflecting the ongoing regional tensions. Dubai’s index rose 1.1 percent, primarily driven by gains in Emaar Development and Emirates NBD Bank. Conversely, Abu Dhabi’s index remained stable, impacted by a downturn in Abu Dhabi National Energy Company.
In Short:
– Russia claims Ukraine targeted Putin’s residence with drones, but the CIA dismisses this as disinformation.
– Ukraine denies allegations, arguing they are fabrications hindering peace talks and lacking evidence.
Russia has provided the United States with purported evidence suggesting Ukraine’s involvement in a drone attack aimed at President Vladimir Putin’s residence. This assertion comes as the CIA and other Western officials have dismissed the claims as disinformation.Admiral Igor Kostyukov, head of Russia’s military intelligence, presented a navigation controller from a downed drone to a U.S. military attache. Russian officials claim that the device’s data indicates the drones targeted Putin’s residence in an attack on December 29, involving 91 drones.
The CIA briefed President Donald Trump that Ukraine did not target Putin or his residence during the incident, asserting that the drones were aimed at a military facility instead. This assessment was communicated to Trump on December 31.
Ukraine has refuted the allegations, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemning them as fabrications meant to justify further attacks and hinder peace discussions. The country’s Center for Countering Disinformation pointed out the lack of evidence, such as air defense activity or drone crash footage.
Diplomatic Ramifications
The situation arose shortly after Trump met with Zelenskyy to discuss potential peace agreements. Trump’s initial anger towards Putin’s claims shifted to skepticism as he later shared opinions that criticized Russia’s role in the peace process.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas labelled Russia’s assertions as distractions aimed at hindering diplomatic negotiations. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov implied that the incident might lead Moscow to reconsider its stance in ongoing discussions aimed at resolving the conflict.
China slaps 55% tariff on Australian beef as trade and geopolitical tensions rise
China has imposed a 55% tariff on Australian beef imports that exceed quota limits, a move that threatens more than $1 billion in annual trade and has reignited tensions between Canberra and Beijing. The restrictions, effective from January 1 for three years, cap Australia’s beef quota at 205,000 tonnes—below the volume China imported in 2024—prompting industry claims the decision undermines the spirit of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Calm fears
Beef producers warn the impact could be severe, with exports to China potentially falling by as much as one-third compared to 2025 levels. Industry groups say the move advantages rival exporters, with Brazil and Argentina receiving far larger quotas, raising concerns Australia could permanently lose market share in a key global market. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has sought to calm fears, saying Australia is not being singled out and describing the beef sector as the strongest it has ever been.
The tariff decision comes against the backdrop of growing geopolitical strain, days after Australia criticised China’s “Justice Mission 2025” military drills near Taiwan as destabilising. Opposition figures are urging the government to leverage diplomatic ties with President Xi Jinping to ensure Australia is not swept up in broader trade retaliation, as industry calls mount for urgent talks to stabilise relations.