Latest news with #al-Qaeda
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Africa terror group could soon strike inside the US, general says
The U.S. military's top general in Africa said terrorist factions in the Sahel region have increased their presence so much in the past three years that they soon may be able to launch attacks within the United States. The region, which mainly includes Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, is 'the flashpoint of prolonged conflict and growing instability,' U.S. Africa Command head Gen. Michael Langley told reporters Thursday. 'It is the epicenter of terrorism on the globe.' 'Extremist groups are gaining ground and also expanding their ambitions. Therein lies the threat to the homeland,' he added on the sidelines of the African Chiefs of Defense Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. Sahel countries have long struggled to combat violent extremist groups, with some facing greater instability after falling to military coups, U.S. officials have warned. The military juntas in power have forced out American and French troops, including in September 2024, when the U.S. completed a withdrawal from its bases in Niger after the military seized power in 2023. At the time, defense leaders predicted the pullout would endanger counterterrorism efforts in an important regional foothold. Langley reiterated those concerns, saying that 'we have lost our ability to monitor these terrorist groups closely.' He said terrorist networks affiliated with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda thrive in the region, particularly in Burkina Faso — where the government no longer controls large swaths of its own territory — as well as Lake Chad, located at the junction of Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon in western and central Africa. Langley said that one group that is of particular concern is Jama'at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin, or JNIM, which has expanded 'fourfold' since 2022 and now controls much of Burkina Faso. He said one of the militants' key goals is gaining access to the West African coast. Should they control the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking and arms trade, 'more easily supporting terrorism to American shores.' Langley's warnings come as the Trump administration has canceled aid programs across Africa and is mulling consolidating its forces on the continent. China and Russia have moved to fill the void left by departing U.S. troops, investing and forming partnerships with local governments to exert influence. Langley would not say if the U.S would further cut its force levels in Africa but stressed that African militaries will need to bear more of the security burden. 'Our strategy is about partnership. It's about the mutual goal of keeping homelands, both ours and our partners, safe,' he said. 'It's about building a long-term capacity, not dependence. It's about investing in Africa's ability to solve African problems.'
2 days ago
- Politics
Africa terror group ramping up ability to strike inside the US, general says
The Sahel region in Africa is now the 'epicenter of terrorism on the globe,' a four-star Marine Corps general warned Thursday, with terror factions there having increased their presence dramatically in the past three years and ramping up their ability to launch attacks inside the U.S. The dire warning by Gen. Michael Langley, head of U.S. Africa Command, comes as the Trump administration cancels aid programs across the continent and considers consolidating military leadership in Africa with one already overseeing troops in Europe. 'It is the flashpoint of prolonged conflict and growing instability. It is the epicenter of terrorism on the globe,' Langley said of Sahel region in Africa, namely Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. Of particular concern is one faction aligned with al-Qaeda known as 'JNIM,' which has expanded 'fourfold' since 2022 and now controls much of Burkina Faso, he said. 'We're keeping a good eye on this, because they could have the capacity to attack the homeland,' he said of the group. U.S. officials have long warned about the growing influence of powerful terror groups operating out of north, west and central Africa, particularly as China and Russia invest heavily there and are forging alliances with local governments to gain influence. Last year, the U.S. shuttered a military base in Niger that was considered a crucial hub for American counterterrorism operations after the governing militia there asked the U.S. to leave and welcomed Russian troops instead. 'Extremist groups are gaining ground and also expanding their ambitions. Therein lies the threat to the homeland as they gain in capability and capacity,' he said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump needs to stop involving himself in Middle East drama
President Trump recently visited a number of Persian Gulf countries, amid intense speculation about his administration's policy toward the Middle East. If only his policy were to disengage from the region altogether. Earlier this month, Trump announced that the U.S. had made a deal to halt strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff has continued to engage in talks with Iran toward a nuclear deal, while disagreements over the issue have roiled Trump's Cabinet and the Pentagon. The president also announced that he would lift sanctions on Syria and met with its new de facto leader Ahmed al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda militant. Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet has approved a plan to raze and occupy Gaza, permanently displacing its 2 million Palestinian inhabitants. Trump has previously suggested that the U.S. will 'take over Gaza' and has suggested that its Palestinian residents be 'cleaned out.' Trump's eagerness to end hostilities with the Houthis, cut a deal with Iran, and lift sanctions on Syria are all encouraging. But his willingness to greenlight Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza and his seeming desire to forge even closer ties to the Gulf states preserves and expands the worst aspects of longstanding U.S. policy toward the region. For decades now, our country has devoted far too much attention to the Middle East, basing policy on preferential treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia and hostility toward Iran. This vastly overstates the importance of the Gulf region for U.S. security and global affairs, while unnecessarily drawing the United States into troublesome entanglements in the region. U.S. policy toward the Gulf during the Cold War was premised on that region's central role in the world energy market — and therefore the supply of oil to U.S. allies in Western Europe and East Asia. Washington made it a priority to prevent the Soviet Union or a hostile local power from dominating the region and disrupting the flow of affordable energy to its allies, which were still reindustrializing and remained militarily underdeveloped. Today, the United States need not protect energy supplies from the Gulf on behalf of its allies, nor does it face the threat of a single power dominating the region. In view of its own increasing resource constraints and the challenge posed by China, Washington should deprioritize the Middle East and have normal businesslike relations with all the powers in the region, rather than special relationships with some and adversarial relations with others. Old habits die hard, however. Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden both doubled down on their commitment to Israel and Saudi Arabia while seeking to isolate Iran. After Trump in his first term torched the Iran nuclear deal, the single diplomatic achievement of the Obama administration, Biden refused to ink a new deal with Tehran, continuing on the collision course set by Trump's 'maximum pressure' policy. Now, ironically, Trump seems ready to make a new deal very much along the lines of the old deal in order to avoid a war with Iran. The Trump administration may make the mistake of thinking that an agreement with Iran requires concomitant concessions to the Israelis and Saudis. Trump has long sought to achieve Saudi-Israeli normalization in exchange for a U.S. security pact with Riyadh, the meat of the so-called 'Abraham Accords.' Israel's brazen rampage in Gaza has ruled out normalization and thus has so far been an obstacle to a U.S.-Saudi security deal. Some have noted that Trump's ties to Israel seem under strain. Trump did not consult with the Israelis before making a deal with the Houthis and has sidelined its concerns regarding a nuclear deal with Iran. Furthermore, he did not visit Israel during his trip to the region. However, Trump's continuing endorsement of — and possible participation in — Israel's reoccupation of Gaza, or his offer of U.S. security guarantees to Saudi Arabia, would be the worst possible recommitments to partnerships that have long been both strategically and morally unsound. Moreover, while the U.S. has participated for too long in the wrecking of Syria, there is no need to lend legitimacy to the new government, whose trustworthiness is highly suspect — particularly in the wake of the massacre of Alawite minorities in recent months. Trump has been willing to make some radical breaks with prior U.S. policy, putting European allies on notice, seeking an end to the Ukraine war, and being willing to cut deals with adversaries in the Gulf. But the best change would be to stop making concessions to Israel and Saudi Arabia, stop being drawn into their local rivalries, normalize relations with Iran, and largely forget about the region's security affairs altogether. Christopher McCallion is a fellow at Defense Priorities. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump needs to stop getting involved in Middle East drama
President Trump recently visited a number of Persian Gulf countries, amid intense speculation about his administration's policy toward the Middle East. If only his policy were to disengage from the region altogether. Earlier this month, Trump announced that the U.S. had made a deal to halt strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff has continued to engage in talks with Iran toward a nuclear deal, while disagreements over the issue have roiled Trump's Cabinet and the Pentagon. The president also announced that he would lift sanctions on Syria and met with its new de facto leader Ahmed al-Shara, a former al-Qaeda militant. Meanwhile, Israel's security cabinet has approved a plan to raze and occupy Gaza, permanently displacing its 2 million Palestinian inhabitants. Trump has previously suggested that the U.S. will 'take over Gaza' and has suggested that its Palestinian residents be 'cleaned out.' Trump's eagerness to end hostilities with the Houthis, cut a deal with Iran, and lift sanctions on Syria are all encouraging. But his willingness to greenlight Israel's ethnic cleansing of Gaza and his seeming desire to forge even closer ties to the Gulf states preserves and expands the worst aspects of longstanding U.S. policy toward the region. For decades now, our country has devoted far too much attention to the Middle East, basing policy on preferential treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia and hostility toward Iran. This vastly overstates the importance of the Gulf region for U.S. security and global affairs, while unnecessarily drawing the United States into troublesome entanglements in the region. U.S. policy toward the Gulf during the Cold War was premised on that region's central role in the world energy market — and therefore the supply of oil to U.S. allies in Western Europe and East Asia. Washington made it a priority to prevent the Soviet Union or a hostile local power from dominating the region and disrupting the flow of affordable energy to its allies, which were still reindustrializing and remained militarily underdeveloped. Today, the United States need not protect energy supplies from the Gulf on behalf of its allies, nor does it face the threat of a single power dominating the region. In view of its own increasing resource constraints and the challenge posed by China, Washington should deprioritize the Middle East and have normal businesslike relations with all the powers in the region, rather than special relationships with some and adversarial relations with others. Old habits die hard, however. Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden both doubled down on their commitment to Israel and Saudi Arabia while seeking to isolate Iran. After Trump in his first term torched the Iran nuclear deal, the single diplomatic achievement of the Obama administration, Biden refused to ink a new deal with Tehran, continuing on the collision course set by Trump's 'maximum pressure' policy. Now, ironically, Trump seems ready to make a new deal very much along the lines of the old deal in order to avoid a war with Iran. The Trump administration may make the mistake of thinking that an agreement with Iran requires concomitant concessions to the Israelis and Saudis. Trump has long sought to achieve Saudi-Israeli normalization in exchange for a U.S. security pact with Riyadh, the meat of the so-called 'Abraham Accords.' Israel's brazen rampage in Gaza has ruled out normalization and thus has so far been an obstacle to a U.S.-Saudi security deal. Some have noted that Trump's ties to Israel seem under strain. Trump did not consult with the Israelis before making a deal with the Houthis and has sidelined its concerns regarding a nuclear deal with Iran. Furthermore, he did not visit Israel during his trip to the region. However, Trump's continuing endorsement of — and possible participation in — Israel's reoccupation of Gaza, or his offer of U.S. security guarantees to Saudi Arabia, would be the worst possible recommitments to partnerships that have long been both strategically and morally unsound. Moreover, while the U.S. has participated for too long in the wrecking of Syria, there is no need to lend legitimacy to the new government, whose trustworthiness is highly suspect — particularly in the wake of the massacre of Alawite minorities in recent months. Trump has been willing to make some radical breaks with prior U.S. policy, putting European allies on notice, seeking an end to the Ukraine war, and being willing to cut deals with adversaries in the Gulf. But the best change would be to stop making concessions to Israel and Saudi Arabia, stop being drawn into their local rivalries, normalize relations with Iran, and largely forget about the region's security affairs altogether. Christopher McCallion is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- General
- Miami Herald
Afghanistan has least hope for future in global history
By Stephen Beech Afghanistan has the lowest well-being levels in recorded history following the withdrawal of American forces, according to new research. Afghans' life satisfaction and hope for the future are both at all-time, global lows, suggest the findings. People living there reported an average life satisfaction of just 1.28, on a scale from zero to 10, following the withdrawal of US troops from the war-torn country and the Taliban regaining power in 2022 - the lowest figure recorded anywhere in the world. The figure is lower than life satisfaction scores recorded in more than 170 countries since 1946, when global ratings were first calculated after World War Two. In 2022, the global mean life satisfaction rating recorded in the Gallup World Poll was 5.48, with most people in economically developed Western countries recording between six and eight, according to the study published in the journal Science Advances. Afghans also showed little hope for the future. When asked to imagine what their lives would be like in five years on the same scale, hope among Afghans fell even lower than their life satisfaction, at 1.02. The War in Afghanistan began in 2001, triggered by the United States and its allies when the Taliban government refused to surrender al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the 9/11 terror attacks. The subsequent conflict led to the violent deaths of more than 165,000 Afghans, while it is estimated that at least as many died due to the lack of necessities, such as food and medicine, as a result of the conflict. Study lead author Levi Stutzman, of the University of Toronto in Canada, said: "Globally, people expect their future to be better than their present. "People are optimistic about their future. "Afghanistan is quite different as Afghans have reported low life satisfaction and even lower hope, which likely reflects profound distress and despair within the country." He added: "This research shines a light on the well-being, the life satisfaction, of people who have been left behind. "They've been left behind by the United States, they've been left behind by the international community, and they've been left behind by international news organisations." The research team says their findings also underline the impacts that life circumstances and structural factors, such as war and political unrest, can have on subjective well-being. Life circumstances have previously been downplayed in leading well-being theories and models, which prioritised genetic factors and intentional activities such as exercise and practicing gratitude. Doctoral student Stutzman said: "Our own sense of well-being, our own happiness, isn't solely up to us. "A lot of it is structural." The research team analysed face-to-face interview data collected in Afghanistan over three periods: before the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and 2019, during the U.S. withdrawal and the first month of Taliban rule in 2021, and after the U.S. withdrawal in 2022. In 2018, Afghans rated their life satisfaction at 2.69, and that did not significantly decline in 2021, during the early stages of the withdrawal of US and UK troops from Afghanistan and the first month of renewed Taliban rule. But after the U.S. withdrawal was completed and the consolidation of Taliban rule in 2022, life satisfaction in Afghanistan dropped to previously unseen levels. In 2022, nearly all Afghans reported a life satisfaction score below five, and two in three Afghans reported a life satisfaction score of either zero or one. A deeper analysis shows that women and people living in rural areas have been disproportionately affected, due to the Taliban placing increased restrictions on women's rights and rural communities lacking resources to help combat food insecurity. The research team said that the struggles facing Afghans have not been widely reported on since 2022, when thousands of them descended on the airport in Kabul desperately trying to flee their country, some clinging to the outside of aircraft trying to take off. Study co-author Dr. Felix Cheung, Assistant Professor in psychology at the University of Toronto, added: "Just because the war has ended, it doesn't mean that every problem has been solved. "That is the first step of a very long recovery process - a process that requires investments in necessities like healthcare, food and water, and infrastructure- and is informed by evidence." The post Afghanistan has least hope for future in global history appeared first on Talker. Copyright Talker News. All Rights Reserved.
