Three experts deliver their assessments on the future of Afghanistan in American foreign policy.
The United States’ “America First” foreign policy under the Trump administration has emphasized security, strength, and economic prosperity. However, its approach to Afghanistan has remained narrowly focused on counterterrorism and the return of American detainees. This raises a critical question: Can Afghanistan contribute to regional stability and prosperity in a way that also aligns with US interests?
With its strategic location and vast untapped mineral wealth, Afghanistan has the potential to become a regional hub for trade and energy transit. Yet, the country remains politically and economically isolated under Taliban rule, facing severe economic decline and strained border relations.
To examine Afghanistan’s potential role in fostering regional economic growth, the Center for the National Interest, the University of South Florida, and the US Institute of Peace convened a high-level expert discussion on July 9, 2025. The panel featured:
Jeff Grieco, President and CEO of the Afghanistan American Chamber of Commerce
Scott Worden, Director of Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs at the US Institute of Peace
Dr. Adib Farhadi, Associate Professor at the University of South Florida and former Deputy/Acting Minister of Commerce and Trade in Afghanistan
The discussion was moderated by Andrew Kuchins, Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest and an expert on international relations in Russia, Central Asia, and Eurasia.
Jeff Grieco
Mr. Grieco, who recently returned from meetings with donors, AACC members, and Taliban officials in Afghanistan on energy and banking issues, argued that Afghanistan can be seen as partially aligning with the Trump administration’s goals of a “safer, stronger, and more prosperous” United States. Under the Taliban Interim Authority (TIA), Afghanistan has cooperated with both the Trump and Biden administrations on significant counterterrorism operations, primarily targeting Al Qaeda, ISIS-K, and other extremist groups.
Grieco noted that while Afghanistan remains fragile, it shows signs of fiscal stabilization, reduced corruption, and investment potential in natural resources. He emphasized that stability has improved, but at the cost of egregious human rights violations against women and girls—issues that must be addressed.
He urged the United States and international community to shift from a defensive posture to actively supporting reform-minded TIA leaders and working toward a unity government within 12–18 months, while unlocking economic cooperation and critical mineral opportunities. As a practical step, Grieco suggested involving US multinationals in joint energy projects—such as the Jangal Kalon and Cheghchi gas fields in the Amu Darya Basin—to advance Afghan development, create livelihoods for the poor, and extend US economic influence within Central Asia.
Dr. Adib Farhadi
Dr. Farhadi emphasized “counter-abandonment” as a strategic imperative in rethinking US policy toward Afghanistan, advocating for pragmatic engagement over isolation to safeguard American interests, prevent humanitarian crises, and promote regional stability.
Drawing on insights from the recent “Rethinking Afghanistan” conference at the University of South Florida, Dr. Farhadi outlined three prevailing policy options: maintaining the status quo, applying maximum pressure, and pursuing pragmatic engagement. He argued that, given the realities of great power competition and lessons learned in Afghanistan, pragmatic engagement is the only viable strategy. This approach supports US counterterrorism objectives, prevents Afghanistan from falling under rival influence, and offers a path for the country—and the broader region—to escape the enduring cycle of conflict.
Farhadi further contended that pragmatic engagement should be understood through a realist-constructivist framework—one that considers both material power dynamics and the cultural, religious, and normative forces shaping regional behavior. He warned that current US policies risk deepening Afghanistan’s crisis and enabling China, Russia, and Iran to expand their influence, particularly over the region’s mineral wealth, potentially excluding the United States from critical supply chains.
Scott Worden
Mr. Worden described the regional relationships that shape Afghanistan’s economy and the ways US policy toward Afghanistan can advance American economic interests. Afghanistan’s neighbors are primarily concerned with protecting themselves from security risks emanating from the country, including terrorism and illegal immigration. While Afghanistan has long held the promise of facilitating regional economic integration and more efficient trade routes, for decades, its political instability has repeatedly undermined its potential to serve as an “Asian roundabout.”
Taliban rule has reduced armed violence within Afghanistan and lowered corruption in the trade and transit sectors. However, it has also dismantled the rule of law, ended girls’ education, and excluded other ethnic and political groups from power. Both donors and investors have pulled their money from Afghanistan, resulting in a 30 percent decline in GDP since the Taliban takeover.
Regional powers, including China, view engagement with the Taliban as necessary to mitigate risks and have initiated exploratory projects to mine critical minerals and develop transportation and energy infrastructure. The CASA-1000 transnational electricity transmission project stands out as a rare example of successful regional cooperation yielding tangible economic benefits. However, Worden argued that without significant changes in Taliban governance, future projects are unlikely to secure the investment needed to move beyond the planning stage.
The United States, he suggested, could secure long-term rights to Afghan minerals and limit China’s sphere of influence by expanding its quiet engagement with the Taliban beyond narrow counterterrorism issues. Such investment, however, would be of little value if Taliban Emir Haibatullah continues to impose a radical Islamic agenda without a functional rule of law. The past four years of piecemeal incentives—such as minor sanctions relief in exchange for detainee releases—have not succeeded. Worden proposed considering a “big for big” approach: eventual recognition of the Taliban government in exchange for concrete steps addressing core US interests, such as guaranteed access to critical minerals, use of the Bagram air base, and an end to radicalization in Afghanistan’s education system.
Image: Tuzla / Shutterstock.com.
