The White House hailed the CIA operation that killed al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul on Saturday as evidence that the use of counterterrorism capabilities in Afghanistan was effective. Current and former officials say Zawahiri’s successful strike certainly proves that with the right intelligence, the U.S. is perfectly capable of engaging a specific target from afar — but the same sources also said that Zawahiri, a single high-value target for a long period of time in The CIA’s crosshairs, was a special case that does not in itself prove the effectiveness of the strategy. “There’s a difference between pursuing a high-value superior target and dealing with the resurgence of these terrorist groups in Afghanistan,” said Beth Shaner, a former spokeswoman for presidential intelligence under President Donald Trump and a senior analyst for South Asia at the CIA. “It’s a whole different ball of wax.” Some intelligence officials have publicly expressed concerns that the terrorist activity brewing in Afghanistan will spread beyond the country’s borders and pose a threat to the United States — and that the US will turn a blind eye to it. Asked directly by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, if he was worried about an attack at home “coming from places like Afghanistan,” FBI Director Chris Wray said Thursday: “We are. Especially now that we’re out there I’m worried about the possible loss of sources and collection there.’ “I’m concerned about the possibility of seeing al Qaeda regroup,” he added. Underscoring how high the stakes have become, some intelligence and military officials who were not involved in the finer details of planning Operation Zawahiri were pleasantly surprised that the U.S. was still able to successfully carry out a strike of such precision, according to a former intelligence official who is still he is in contact with his former colleagues.
Instead, administration officials say Zawahiri’s strike is evidence that the US is monitoring and successfully addressing the threat without American boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Sources familiar with the intelligence behind the strike say the US integrated many different nuggets of data from multiple intelligence streams to identify and target Zawahiri. “I think I’m more satisfied and more confident [in US intelligence in Afghanistan] than I was even a week ago because of what this collection just allowed, which was a very remarkable, quite precise action,” a senior administration official told CNN on Friday. “The fact that there haven’t been any other uses of force of this type in the past year means we’re watching and being prudent — and where we think it’s getting to the point where we need to act, we act,” the official said. “But I think it’s a pretty strong demonstration of what this capability can deliver.” The US now relies heavily on drone flights and human networks on the ground to gather intelligence about what is happening inside Afghanistan, according to a former intelligence official and a source familiar with the information. But drone flights from the Gulf are logistically complex and have limited time in Afghanistan thanks to the long flight, making them expensive to operate and limiting their usefulness. And without a US presence on the ground, intelligence professionals expect that human networks may degrade over time. “I think we don’t know what we don’t know,” said one former official.

Difficult questions

For now, there is broad consensus within the intelligence community that the immediate threat that al Qaeda will be able to use Afghanistan as a safe haven to plan attacks on the US homeland or US interests remains low. However, difficult questions remain about whether this risk will increase over time. Much depends on the current unknowns — in particular, how the Taliban will react to Zawahiri’s assassination. “Will the Taliban really allow AQ to use Afghanistan?” said a source familiar with the information. “There are a lot of factors at play in this conversation,” this person said. “And all complicated.” The intelligence community in its annual threat assessment released this year rates the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and West Africa as a greater threat to US interests abroad than its weakened leadership in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, officials believe, is still gauging its ability to operate under Taliban rule and will likely remain focused on maintaining its safe haven rather than planning external operations — at least for now.
And although al-Qaeda leaders enjoyed “increased freedom of action” under the Taliban, according to a recent UN report, there has been no significant influx of new fighters into Afghanistan since the US withdrawal – a reflection of how al-Qaeda evolved away from centrally planned attacks, according to some analysts. But as for what happens next, a US source described the analysis across all intelligence agencies as “all over the place”. “What we don’t think is happening is some kind of renaissance [or] rebirth of an operational al Qaeda presence — even with less famous names [than Zawahiri],” said the senior administration official. There is a school of thought that while some elements of the Taliban may feel obliged to honor their vow to shield al Qaeda old guard members like Zawahiri, it has no obligation or incentive to welcome a new generation of fighters. And according to intelligence officials, few members of al Qaeda’s original leadership remain in Afghanistan, none of whom are likely to replace Zawahiri. Meanwhile, the latest crackdown, some analysts say, may deter terrorist leaders from traveling to the country from elsewhere. They argue that the far greater danger is al-Qaeda affiliates in Africa and elsewhere that are loosely linked to key leaders in Afghanistan. “There are some people who are very concerned,” said Shaner, who is now a CNN contributor. “I personally think the AQ core in Afghanistan is not doing a lot of operational planning.” Others think it’s more likely that the Taliban — consumed with trying to legitimize their government amid economic collapse and an ongoing conflict with ISIS-K — simply don’t have the bandwidth to prevent Afghanistan from being used by al Qaeda or its affiliates to plan attacks on the United States. There are also concerns that the remnants of Al Qaeda may simply be absorbed by the Taliban. The UN report found a “close relationship” between al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

How the Taliban respond

How the Taliban is responding to Zawahiri’s death remains an open question — and one that intelligence and military officials are watching closely, multiple officials said. According to a source familiar with the intelligence, it is unclear to US intelligence how many people in the Taliban knew that Zawahiri was holed up in Kabul in a house belonging to the powerful Haqqani faction — a militant group that belongs to Taliban government. The Taliban have publicly denied knowing of his presence before the strike, and analysts are watching closely to see if his exposure leads to any kind of rift between the Taliban and Haqqani. “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has no information about Ayman al-Zawahiri’s arrival and stay in Kabul,” the Taliban said in a statement. White House officials said Monday that senior Haqqani Taliban officials were aware of Zawahiri’s presence in the area and even took steps to conceal his presence after Saturday’s successful attack, restricting access to the safe house and quickly moving family members. of him, including his daughter and her children. “As far as we know, many people in the Taliban did not know that the Haqqanis were giving shelter to Zawahiri in Kabul. “Does this create a split between the Taliban and the Haqqani?” the intelligence source said. The senior government official said Friday that the Taliban were “trying a little bit to figure out who knew what and who didn’t — and also to get their story straight about what happened.” Some U.S. military officials, meanwhile, hope the strike may help the Taliban engage in some kind of limited cooperation with the U.S. to target ISIS-K, a common enemy and separate terrorist group in Afghanistan that the U.S. military is much more concerned. by al-Qaeda, according to two sources familiar with the situation. “I think it was a token strike that took away an inspirational leader,” Shaner said. “It completes the job of removing the two people who were at the center of 9/11. But it’s the end of an era — it’s not a current threat.”