What Is Left of the War on Terror?

Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
TT
20

What Is Left of the War on Terror?

Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)
Pedestrians react to the World Trade Center collapse, September 11, 2001. (Reuters)

Can three planes sum up a portion of history and the future? It seems that this has already happened. While two of these planes hit the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11, the third took off around twenty years later, departing from Afghanistan as desperate Afghans chased it, with some losing their lives as they clung to it.

However, summing up a portion of history in this way could seem “disturbing,” as it is a reductionist narrative of the thousands of people and billions of dollars that were lost. It would perhaps be more sound to add a fourth plane - a drone this time, that which killed Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul last August.

Twenty-one years on from 9/11, can we say that the “terrorist groups” who had initiated this battle at its outset, like Al-Qaeda - and we can add those that followed in its footsteps with new names and slogans, like ISIS, if we want to be brutally precise - are still robust forces? And what is left of them? Where are these remains found? Are they still the number one enemy of the United States?

In Afghanistan itself, where everything began, the enemies of the United States have expanded their circle of hostile targets, with ISIS-K launching a suicide attack against the Russian embassy. On the other hand, the United States has reached a settlement with the Taliban, which had been on the opposite side of the War on Terror. Their deal left the latter back in power, but that did not prevent the United States from keeping its eyes open and taking out Zawahiri.

In an August piece published in the Rand Institute, James Dobbins argued that “this latest success demonstrated anew the efficacy of US long-range targeting capability, but this has never been in doubt. What has been questionable, and remains so, is the US ability to monitor extremist activity in a country in which it lacks both direct access and a partner on the ground.

He then added: “the Taliban’s apparent decision to host the world’s most wanted terrorist will probably lead the world to further isolate the Taliban, making it more difficult to track, let alone influence, what’s going on there.”

Iraq and Syria

In Iraq, Mosul’s historical Nuri Mosque, which ISIS had turned into its headquarters, is now under UNESCO’s control. Things don’t seem different on the military front.

The official spokesman for the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service, Sabah al-Numan, affirmed two days ago that “the ISIS terrorist gangs have lost the initiative,” adding that the situation on the border with Syria has become much better and more stable.

However, while his assessment is encouraging, many observers remain worried about cells active in the country. Indeed, their fears are not baseless, as an ISIS cell was recently apprehended in Kurdistan.

The picture is not much different in Syria. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have discussed attempts by ISIS-affiliated militants to open corridors south of the Euphrates to establish lines of communication with other members.”

According to a statistic published by ISIS’s Al-Naba magazine, 26 of the 50 operations the organization launched between the first and seventh of September hit targets in the Levant, leaving 49 people dead or wounded.

Al-Qaeda boasts two headquarters, the first in Yemen, where the group managed to kill 21 Yemeni soldiers in the south this month, losing only six of their fighters in the clashes.

The second is in Somalia, where the Al-Shabab, Al-Qaeda’s strongest and most active branch, killed 17.

African affiliates

Through operations and attacks of divergent scales, ISIS affiliates are active in several African countries, where they have left (in the first week of September alone) 75 people dead or wounded.

Mohamed Fawzy, an Egyptian researcher specialized in regional security affairs, tells Asharq Al-Awsat that “after 2001, terrorist attacks would rise and fall, peaking period after 2011.

However, he adds, “The organizations affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS are still active in critical strategic areas in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia, especially after the Taliban took over the Afghan state. Indeed, the Taliban’s rise has motivated many organizations to strive to replicate its model and has turned Afghan territory into a safe haven for many of these groups and their top brass.”

Who is the enemy? What is the priority?

The AP reported that the second in command at the CIA said in a closed-door meeting that fighting Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups remains a priority, but increasing funds and attention will go to countering China. Naturally, the increased focus on the latter will reduce the funds allocated for combatting terrorism.

This shift did not occur overnight, but it seems to be moving increasingly swiftly recently. In June 2021, the Pentagon announced its decision to reduce the number of American troops in the Middle East. Two months later, the decision to pull out of Afghanistan was taken.

Moreover, Russia’s war on Ukraine has compelled the US to focus more strongly on Europe, with President Joe Biden announcing the deployment of new troops shortly after that war began.

Nevertheless, Fawzy insisted that “terrorism still constitutes the greatest threat facing all countries of the world. Experiences have demonstrated that these organizations cannot be completely eliminated, especially with their adoption of novel strategies.”



US-Ukraine Minerals Deal: What We Know

FILE - President Donald Trump, right, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov, File)
FILE - President Donald Trump, right, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov, File)
TT
20

US-Ukraine Minerals Deal: What We Know

FILE - President Donald Trump, right, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov, File)
FILE - President Donald Trump, right, meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office at the White House, Feb. 28, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov, File)

Washington and Kyiv have signed a new minerals deal that will see the United States invest in Ukraine's rare earth and other deposits as it seeks to reduce military aid to the war-torn country.

The deal came together after US President Donald Trump demanded compensation for US aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden's administration, and follows weeks of delays following a spat in late February between Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, AFP said.

Here's what we know about the agreement -- which lacks any explicit security guarantees for Ukraine:

- What's in the deal? -

Under the terms of the deal announced on Wednesday, Ukraine and the United States will establish a joint Reconstruction Investment Fund.

The fund will be controlled by a company with "equal representation of three Ukrainian and three American board members," the US Treasury Department said in a statement.

The agreement covers 57 types of resources, including oil and gas.

If the United States decides to buy the resources, they will be given "first choice to either acquire them or designate the purchaser of our choice," the Treasury Department said.

The new fund "will receive 50 percent of royalties, license fees, and other similar payments from natural resource projects in Ukraine," according to the US Treasury.

Its profits will be invested exclusively in Ukraine for the first 10 years, after which profits "may be distributed between the partners," Kyiv said.

What resources does Ukraine have?

Ukraine holds about five percent of the world's mineral resources and rare earths, according to various estimates.

But work has not yet started on tapping many of the resources and a number of sites are in territory now controlled by Russian forces.

Ukraine also has around 20 percent of the world's graphite, an essential material for electric batteries, according to France's Bureau of Geological and Mining Research, and is a major producer of manganese and titanium.

It also says it possesses one of the largest lithium deposits in Europe, which is yet to be extracted.

Kyiv says "rare earth metals are known to exist in six deposits" and an investment of $300 million would be needed to develop a deposit at Novopoltavske, which it claimed was one of the world's largest.

Does Ukraine have to repay the US?

Trump demanded compensation for US aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden's administration.

But under the terms of the deal signed this week, Ukraine will not be asked to pay back the billions of dollars it has received from the United States since Russia's invasion of the country in February 2022.

New military aid from Washington will be counted as its contribution to the fund, according to the text of the agreement.

Ukraine said it will maintain full control over its subsoil, infrastructure and natural resources throughout the process.

Kyiv noted that the agreement does not impact its bid for integration with the European Union.

What does US support mean for Ukraine?

Ukraine has said any deal would need to include long-term and robust security guarantees that would deter Russia from attacking again.

But the text does not place any specific security obligations on the United States.

It simply says that the United States "supports Ukraine's efforts to obtain the security assurances necessary to build a lasting peace."

However, a US Treasury statement notably mentioned Russia's "full-scale invasion" of Ukraine -- diverging from the Trump administration's usual formulation of a "conflict" for which Kyiv bears a large degree of responsibility.

"This is win-win for both sides," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business on Thursday.

"I think this is a strong signal to the Russian leadership," he said.