Business
Lord of War, Kabul Edition: The Rise of a Regional Arms Bazaar
Afghanistan’s lost U.S. weapons flood black markets, arming militias and fueling conflicts worldwide
When U.S. troops scrambled out of Afghanistan in August 2021, the world watched footage of helicopters leaving the embassy rooftop, desperate crowds at Kabul airport, and the Taliban streaming into the capital. But what went largely unnoticed in those chaotic final days was the real treasure left behind — nearly one million weapons and military gear, from M4 rifles to Humvees, night-vision goggles to ammunition stockpiles.
And just like a scene from Lord of War or American Made, those weapons didn’t sit idle for long.
In the 2017 film American Made, Tom Cruise plays Barry Seal, a TWA pilot turned CIA smuggler, ferrying guns to Central America — not out of political conviction, but for cold, hard cash. It’s a story about how war and profit intertwine, where ideology takes a backseat to opportunity. Fast forward to Kabul, and the same principle applies: weapons abandoned by U.S. forces were never about ideology for those who grabbed them — they were about profit.
According to a UN Security Council briefing held behind closed doors in Doha, Taliban representatives admitted that nearly half a million of those weapons are “unaccounted for.” Independent analysis confirms the scale of the loss. While Taliban fighters posed with captured U.S. rifles and Humvees for propaganda, the real action was unfolding quietly, in back rooms and encrypted chats, where weapons were being sold to the highest bidder.
The arms didn’t stay in Afghanistan. They spread — like oil on water — into Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and beyond. A February 2024 UN report listed militant buyers including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels. But in truth, the guns traveled not because of shared extremist causes, but because they were lucrative commodities.
Just like Barry Seal’s contraband flights, the black market arms trade is first and foremost a business.
That reality has surfaced in seizures across the region. In July 2023, Syrian authorities intercepted a large shipment of weapons bound for Sweida — a flashpoint for militia activity. Though the origins of the shipment weren’t officially revealed, independent analysts spotted U.S.-manufactured serials and models tracing back to Afghan stockpiles. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, customs agents announced a stunning bust: narcotics, tobacco, and weapons seized in a single convoy, blending arms smuggling with broader illicit trades.
In Lebanon, security forces arrested smugglers attempting to sneak guns across the porous Syrian border. And perhaps most tellingly, UAE authorities foiled a plot to transfer weapons and military equipment to Sudanese armed factions, where civil war rages. All these shipments were part of a murky transnational web — not driven by ideology, but by profit motives as old as war itself.
It’s an uncomfortable truth often glossed over in policy debates: most arms smuggling isn’t ideological. It’s transactional.
In Lord of War, Nicolas Cage’s character Yuri Orlov delivers a chilling monologue: “There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That’s one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: how do we arm the other eleven?” The Taliban may not have seen themselves as arms dealers, but by sitting on an arsenal of American-made firepower, they had a seller’s advantage.
Indeed, Taliban commanders were reportedly allowed to keep up to 20% of captured U.S. arms for “personal use.” But personal use soon turned into personal sales. By 2022, weapons that had once been openly hawked in Kandahar’s famous arms bazaars were moving quietly through WhatsApp and Telegram groups, where encryption provided a safe marketplace. Buyers? Not just Afghan factions, but foreign militias willing to pay premium prices.
Taliban spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat denies smuggling allegations, insisting all weapons remain “securely stored.” But visuals tell a different story: from fighters holding M4 rifles in Yemen to U.S.-origin Humvees appearing in Sudanese desert convoys.
The U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) admits it lost track of most of the equipment due to years of inconsistent tracking and poor coordination between agencies. John Sopko, the former SIGAR chief, warned that trying to retrieve the weapons was now “next to impossible.” Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has harped on a figure of $85 billion in lost military gear — a figure inflated to include salaries and infrastructure, but nonetheless politically potent.
Still, beyond the political posturing, a deeper pattern is emerging: the U.S. inadvertently stocked the world’s most dangerous flea market.
And like the smuggling depicted in American Made — where government-sanctioned operations morph into rogue profiteering — the line between war spoils and illicit arms deals became blurred. While policy makers framed Afghanistan’s collapse in terms of governance and security, smugglers framed it in terms of supply and demand.
The weapons didn’t leave Afghanistan because of ideology. They left because buyers were ready, routes were open, and sellers — whether Taliban or corrupt commanders — saw an opportunity to cash in.
Some arms ended up reinforcing ideological battles: in the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates, or militias fighting for sectarian causes. But many more likely wound up with whoever paid in cash, gold, or trade goods. In the black market, the creed isn’t jihad or nationalism; it’s profit margin.
That reality complicates international responses. How do you disrupt a trade that’s decentralized, entrepreneurial, and thriving on encrypted platforms? Unlike Cold War arms pipelines that followed state allegiances, today’s flows are opportunistic, nimble, and pragmatic. A broker in Kandahar sells to a Yemeni smuggler, who offloads to a Sudanese militia, no questions asked.
For regional powers like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, the concern isn’t just that terrorists get weapons. It’s that anyone — a warlord, a cartel, a political rival — can suddenly become a militarized actor with U.S.-grade firepower.
As shipments continue to be seized from Syria to Sudan, one thing is clear: the Afghan arsenal is now a regional stockpile for whoever pays. And like the arms runners of Lord of War or American Made, those moving the weapons don’t necessarily care what the guns will be used for — only what they’re worth.
It’s a cautionary tale echoing through history: wars end, but weapons linger, traded and resold, long after the flags change and the treaties are signed. Afghanistan’s abandoned stockpile is the latest chapter in that grim tradition.
And somewhere, in a dusty backroom or a WhatsApp chat, a middleman counts cash over a crate of American rifles, unconcerned whether they’ll fuel a jihad, a coup, or just the next black-market deal.
As of July 2025, the United Kingdom is entering a new era of pragmatic diplomacy with its European neighbors. On May 19, Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted the first formal UK-European Union summit since Brexit, marking a decisive step away from the combative tone of recent years. While rejoining the EU remains off the table, the summit produced a series of significant agreements that reflect a broader strategic reset.
Rather than reversing Brexit, Starmer’s government is pursuing targeted re-engagement—focusing on shared interests in defense, trade, youth mobility, and climate coordination. The aim is clear: to restore Britain’s economic competitiveness and geopolitical relevance while respecting the boundaries set by the 2016 referendum.
This approach reflects both necessity and opportunity. On one hand, the UK continues to grapple with economic headwinds, including trade frictions and a shrinking labor pool. On the other, global challenges such as the war in Ukraine, climate volatility, and energy insecurity demand closer cooperation with European allies. Starmer’s vision is not to rewind Brexit—but to reshape its legacy into something more functional, stable, and globally connected.
The agreements from the summit speak volumes. The UK will now participate in EU-led defense programs and gain access to the €150 billion SAFE fund, supporting joint military research, procurement, and intelligence-sharing. This marks the most significant security convergence between Britain and the EU since Brexit.
On trade, a new veterinary agreement will streamline sanitary checks on food and agriculture, easing export headaches for UK businesses. And a 12-year fisheries deal, allowing limited EU access to UK waters, underscores the spirit of compromise at the heart of this new chapter.
Meanwhile, a youth mobility scheme will allow 18- to 30-year-olds to live and work in each other’s territories—an initiative welcomed by educators and employers alike. Negotiations are also underway to align emissions trading systems, boosting climate cooperation and price stability.
These moves are not about rejoining EU institutions, but about rebuilding influence and trust. By choosing functional integration over ideological isolation, Starmer is positioning Britain as a European stakeholder without forfeiting sovereignty.
But what does this mean for the United States? London’s stalled efforts to secure a comprehensive trade deal with Washington have long been hindered by regulatory divergence from the EU. If the UK selectively aligns with European standards—particularly in key sectors like digital trade, electric vehicles, and pharmaceuticals—it could become a more attractive, stable partner for U.S. investors and exporters.
This convergence might also create opportunities for youth exchanges, tech cooperation, and mutual recognition agreements between the UK and the U.S. Rather than limiting transatlantic ambitions, the EU reset may unlock new paths for engagement with Washington.
Critics at home are less convinced. Hardline Brexiteers warn that sectoral alignment erodes sovereignty. But for many in business, education, and defense, the benefits of stability and access outweigh the symbolism of separation.
The summit closed with a pledge for annual UK-EU meetings—a quiet but powerful signal that long-term partnership is back on the agenda. This isn’t Britain going backward. It’s Britain going forward—on its own terms, but not alone.
If managed well, this re-engagement could set the stage for a new type of transatlantic diplomacy. One not built on nostalgia, but on pragmatism and shared strategic interests.
Britain’s relationship with Europe is evolving. Its relationship with America could be next.
Nigeria has officially cleared its $3.4 billion emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), marking a significant milestone in its economic recovery and fiscal responsibility. The IMF confirmed that the final repayment was completed on April 30, 2025, concluding a five-year loan cycle initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In April 2020, amidst a global health crisis and plummeting oil prices that severely impacted Nigeria’s economy, the IMF extended a $3.4 billion loan under its Rapid Financing Instrument. This facility was designed to provide urgent financial assistance to countries facing balance of payments challenges without the need for a full-fledged program. The loan carried a low interest rate of 1% and was to be repaid over five years.
The repayment journey began earnestly in late 2023, with Nigeria disbursing \$401.73 million in the fourth quarter, followed by $409.35 million in the first quarter of 2024, and $404.24 million in the second quarter. By June 2024, the country’s debt to the IMF had reduced from $3.26 billion to $1.16 billion. The final installment was paid by April 30, 2025, effectively settling the debt.
Despite the completion of the principal repayments, Nigeria will continue to make annual payments of approximately $30 million in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) charges, as per IMF protocols. The successful repayment has been lauded by various stakeholders. The Tinubu Media Volunteers (TMV) commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration for its commitment to meeting international obligations, highlighting the financial re-engineering that facilitated the timely repayments.
However, the journey was not without controversy. In early 2024, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) filed a lawsuit against President Tinubu over allegations that the $3.4 billion loan was missing, diverted, or unaccounted for. These allegations were based on the 2020 annual audited report by the Auditor-General of the Federation, which suggested a lack of documentation on the movement and spending of the IMF loan.l
SERAP urged the government to investigate these claims, prosecute those responsible, and recover any missing funds. The organization emphasized that servicing IMF loans allegedly missing or unaccounted for constitutes a double jeopardy for Nigerians, potentially exacerbating the country’s debt burden.
In response to the loan approval in 2020, the Nigerian government had assured the IMF of its commitment to transparency and accountability. Measures included publishing procurement plans and notices for all emergency-response activities, as well as undertaking an independent audit of crisis-mitigation spending. As Nigeria turns a new page in its economic narrative, the successful repayment of the IMF loan stands as a testament to its resilience and commitment to fiscal responsibility. However, the lingering allegations of mismanagement underscore the need for continued vigilance and transparency in public financial management.
Business
Scoop of Dissent: Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founder Disrupts Senate Over Gaza
Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen arrested protesting U.S. bomb funding for Gaza conflict
On May 14, 2025, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, was arrested during a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing. The session, which featured Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was disrupted by Cohen and several other protesters who voiced opposition to U.S. involvement in the Gaza conflict.
As Kennedy Jr. was testifying, Cohen stood up and shouted, “Congress pays for bombs to kill children in Gaza,” accusing lawmakers of prioritizing military spending over domestic welfare programs like Medicaid. The Capitol Police swiftly intervened, removing Cohen and six other demonstrators from the room. Cohen was charged with a misdemeanor under a Washington, D.C. statute that prohibits “crowding, obstructing or incommoding,” which is commonly applied in cases of nonviolent protests. If convicted, he faces a potential sentence of up to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both.
In an interview following his release, Cohen expressed his frustration with U.S. foreign policy, stating, “It got to a point where we had to do something.”
He criticized the approval of $20 billion worth of bombs for Israel, arguing that such expenditures come at the expense of domestic programs that support American children.
Cohen’s protest aligns with Ben & Jerry’s longstanding tradition of political activism. In 2021, the company halted sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, citing its commitment to social justice. Additionally, in March 2024, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit alleging that its parent company, Unilever, had removed its CEO, David Stever, in retaliation for the brand’s progressive stances, including its support for Palestinian rights.
The incident has sparked widespread attention and debate over the U.S. government’s role in the Gaza conflict and the allocation of federal resources. Cohen’s arrest underscores the ongoing tensions between political activism and governmental policies, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals and organizations advocating for change in the current political climate.
Britain’s Strategic Recalibration: The UK-EU Reset and What It Means for Washington
Tooth or Consequences: DeSantis Signs Anti-Fluoride Bill Into Law
Nigeria Pays Off IMF Debt, Faces Scrutiny Over Missing Funds
-
Business3 months agoWhy Are Planes Falling from the Sky?
-
Opinion3 months ago
How I Spent My Week: Roasting Musk, Martian ICE, and Government Absurdities
-
Politics5 months ago
Comrade Workwear Unveils ‘Most Wanted CEO’ Playing Cards Amidst Controversy
-
Opinion4 months ago
From Le Pen to Trump: The Far-Right Legacy Behind a Presidential Comeback
-
Opinion2 months ago
Oval Office Chaos: How Trump and Zelensky’s Meeting Went Off the Rails
-
Business1 month ago
Trump’s ‘Gold Card’ Visa: Citizenship for Sale at $5 Million a Piece
-
Politics4 months ago
The Changing Face of Terrorism in 2025
-
Opinion4 months ago
2025: The Turning Point in Global Power and Security
