Yaqeen Blog

The 20-year war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) is often described as a military or political failure, but from a "Real Power" perspective, it was an economic defeat. The United States and its allies failed to realize that they weren't just fighting an insurgency; they were fighting a Narco-State where heroin was the lifeblood of the entire country.

1. The Diagnostic of Failure: Funding the Enemy

While the U.S. spent over $8 billion on "Counter-Narcotics," heroin production actually skyrocketed during the occupation. The heroin trade provided a "Standard Script" for the Taliban’s survival:

• Financial Independence: By 2017, the Taliban were reportedly earning between $40 million and $400 million annually from the drug trade. They taxed everything from poppy seeds to the laboratories that turned opium into heroin.

• The PR Trap: When the U.S. tried to burn poppy fields, they actually helped the Taliban. Local farmers, who had no other way to feed their families, saw the U.S. as "subhuman" invaders destroying their only income. The Taliban stepped in as the "protectors" of the farmers, gaining massive public support.

• Corruption at the Top: Many officials in the U.S.-backed Afghan government were secretly involved in the drug trade. This created a state of Managed Ambiguity—the people supposed to stop the drugs were often the ones getting rich from them.

2. The Shift: From Opium to Meth (2025-2026)

As of early 2026, the story has changed. Since the Taliban retook Kabul in 2021 and issued a formal ban on poppies in 2022, opium production has dropped by nearly 95%. However, the "Real Power" hasn't vanished—it has simply pivoted.

• Synthetic Surge: With the poppy ban in place, many labs have shifted to producing methamphetamine using the ephedra plant, which grows wild in the Afghan mountains.

• The Humanitarian Cost: The ban has left millions of rural poor in a state of "economic suicide," as they have no "alternative livelihood" to replace the money they made from poppies.

3. The Islamic Perspective: Quran and Sunnah

From a "Rules-Based Order" within Islam, the drug trade is considered strictly Haram (forbidden). Islamic jurisprudence treats narcotics through the lens of preserving the five necessities: Religion, Life, Intellect, Progeny, and Wealth.

Evidence from the Quran

• The Prohibition of Intoxicants: The Quran states, "O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants (Khamr), gambling... are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:90). Scholars use Qiyas (analogical reasoning) to rule that since heroin impairs the intellect like alcohol, it falls under this ban.

• Self-Destruction: The Quran warns, "And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction" (Surah Al-Baqarah 1:195). Heroin addiction is viewed as a literal path to destruction of the self and society.

Evidence from the Sunnah

• The "Narcotic" Ban: A famous Hadith narrated by Umm Salama states, "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade every intoxicant (Muskir) and narcotic (Mufattir)" (Sunan Abu Dawood). A "Mufattir" is anything that causes weakness or slackness in the mind and body.

• No Harm, No Reciprocation: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm" (Muwatta Malik). Selling heroin causes massive harm to the buyer, their family, and the world, making the profit from it unjust enrichment.

The Verdict: The Business of War

In the end, heroin won because the West treated it as a police problem, while the Taliban treated it as a survival strategy. Despite the religious prohibition, the "Real Power" of poverty forced a nation to rely on a "Forbidden" crop.

In 2013, a 29-year-old systems administrator named Edward Snowden walked out of his high-paying job at an NSA facility in Hawaii and flew to Hong Kong with a laptop full of secrets. He wasn't a spy for a foreign power; he was a whistleblower who believed the "Real Power" of the U.S. government had turned into a "Moral Theater" of lies.

Snowden’s leak revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was quietly recording the phone calls, emails, and internet activity of nearly everyone on Earth—including millions of innocent Americans.

A Society Under the Microscope

Snowden’s view was simple: the U.S. government had built a system of "Total Awareness" that destroyed the idea of privacy. He didn't want to live in a world where every move was tracked by a "Digital Ghost."

○ The "Turnkey Tyranny"

Snowden warned about a "Turnkey Tyranny." This means the government builds a massive surveillance system and says, "Trust us, we won't use it for bad things." But Snowden argued that once the system exists, all it takes is one bad leader to "turn the key" and use it to crush anyone who disagrees with them.

○ The Death of Privacy

One of Snowden’s most famous direct quotes defines his stance:

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

The Abuses: What the NSA Files Actually Showed

Snowden didn't just have "opinions"; he had receipts. The documents he handed over to journalists exposed several immoral acts:

• PRISM: A secret program that allowed the NSA to reach directly into the servers of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple to grab user data without a warrant.

• Massive Hypocrisy: While the U.S. lectured other countries about human rights and "freedom," it was secretly tapping the phones of world leaders, including its own allies like the German Chancellor.

• The "Lying to Congress" Incident: Snowden’s leaks proved that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, lied under oath to the U.S. Senate when he said the NSA did not "wittingly" collect data on millions of Americans.

The "Unending Obligation" to Speak Up

Snowden viewed his actions not as a betrayal of his country, but as a defense of the Constitution. He saw the government using "Managed Ambiguity"—using secret laws and secret courts to do things the public would never vote for.

○ A Quote on Moral Responsibility:

"I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support, it's not something I am willing to build, and it's not something I am willing to live under."

Why It Still Matters in 2026

Today, Snowden lives in exile, but his diagnostic of the world remains more relevant than ever. In the age of AI and facial recognition, the "surveillance state" he warned about has only grown more powerful.

• For the Student: He is a reminder that being "legal" is not the same as being "right." History puts him alongside Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers) as someone who chose his conscience over his career.

• For the Analyst: Snowden’s leak forced the world to realize that the "Internet" is not a neutral space. It is a battlefield where "Real Power" is determined by who owns the most data.

Snowden’s legacy is a question that every citizen of the digital age must answer: Do we want to be "monitored subjects," or do we want to be free people?

For decades, a heavy rumor has lived in the streets of America’s inner cities: the idea that the U.S. government—specifically the CIA—was the one that brought crack cocaine into the neighborhoods. While officials called it a "conspiracy theory," a journalist named Gary Webb published a series of articles in 1996 called "Dark Alliance" that proved the truth was far more complicated and darker than anyone imagined.

The Diagnostic: Fighting a Secret War with Drug Money

To understand this story, you have to look at the "Real Power" moves of the 1980s. The U.S. government wanted to stop a group in Nicaragua (Central America) from being Communist. They supported a rebel group called the Contras.

○ The Problem: The U.S. Congress passed a law saying the government couldn't send any more money to the Contras.

○ The "Managed Opening": The Contras still needed millions of dollars for guns and supplies. To get that money, some Contra leaders started working with drug traffickers to move tons of cocaine into the United States.

○ The Blind Eye: Gary Webb’s research showed that the CIA knew about these drug links but chose to protect the traffickers. Because these traffickers were helping the CIA’s secret war, the government looked the other way while cocaine flooded into cities like Los Angeles.

The "Crack" Connection

Gary Webb's reporting linked two Nicaraguan traffickers to a man named "Freeway" Rick Ross, who was one of the biggest drug dealers in L.A. at the time.

• The Result: This massive supply of cheap cocaine was turned into "crack." It was affordable, highly addictive, and it devastated Black neighborhoods.

• The Irony: While the CIA was protecting the people bringing the drugs in, the U.S. government was passing "tough on crime" laws that put the people using the drugs away for decades. This created a cycle of poverty and prison that many communities are still fighting today.

The "Moral Theater" of the Media

The strangest part of the story is what happened after Gary Webb published the truth. Instead of being celebrated as a hero, the biggest newspapers in the country (like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times) attacked him instead of the CIA.

○ The Takedown: The big media outlets focused on tiny details of his story to make him look like a liar. This is a classic case of Managed Ambiguity—by making the reporter look "crazy," the government didn't have to answer the real questions about the drug money.

○ The Cost: Gary Webb lost his job, his reputation, and eventually his life. It wasn’t until years later that the CIA’s own Inspector General admitted that the agency did work with people involved in the drug trade and failed to report it to the police.

Why It Still Matters in 2026

The Gary Webb story is a diagnostic for how Intelligence Agencies operate. They often prioritize "Geopolitical Goals" (like winning a war in Nicaragua) over the "Domestic Safety" of their own citizens.

• For the Student: It shows that "conspiracy theories" sometimes start because people notice a pattern of behavior that the government is trying to hide.

• For the Analyst: This case study proves that the "War on Drugs" was never a simple fight between good and bad. It was a tool of statecraft where the "Good Guys" sometimes helped the "Bad Guys" to achieve a secret win.

The story of the crack epidemic isn't just about drugs; it's about what happens when the people in power decide that the "end justifies the means," even if the "means" destroys thousands of lives at home.

In December 1989, the United States launched Operation Just Cause, a massive military intervention that sent 27,000 troops into the small Central American nation of Panama. While most military actions of that era were framed as battles against communism, this was different. It was essentially the world’s largest drug bust. The target was General Manuel Noriega, the military dictator of Panama and a man who had once been one of the CIA’s most valuable partners in the region.The story of Noriega’s rise and fall is a complex chapter in American history, marking the moment the "War on Drugs" replaced the "Cold War" as the primary driver of U.S. foreign policy.

The Double Agent: Noriega and the CIA

For decades, Manuel Noriega was a "frenemy" of the U.S. government. Starting in the 1960s, Noriega provided vital intelligence to the CIA. He was a key player in helping the U.S. counter Soviet influence in Central America. In exchange for his help, the U.S. ignored his "side hustles," which included brutalizing political opponents and working with the Medellín Cartel.

The Turning Point: From Asset to Liability

The relationship soured when Noriega’s crimes became too loud to ignore. In 1988, he was indicted by federal grand juries in Miami and Tampa on charges of racketeering and drug trafficking. Tensions peaked in 1989 when Noriega’s forces killed an off-duty U.S. Marine.

President George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion with four main goals:

1. Protecting U.S. lives (specifically those living near the Panama Canal).

2. Defending democracy and human rights in Panama.

3. Combating drug trafficking.

4. Securing the Panama Canal, a vital waterway for global trade.

The Invasion and the Vatican Standoff

The U.S. military quickly overwhelmed Panama’s forces. Noriega fled and sought "diplomatic asylum" in the Nunciature (the Vatican’s embassy) in Panama City. In a famous and strange tactic, U.S. troops surrounded the building and blasted high-volume rock music 24/7 to psychologically pressure him to surrender. On January 3, 1990, he finally walked out and was taken into U.S. custody. 

The Legacy: A New Era of Foreign Policy

Noriega’s trial in Miami was a landmark event. He was the first foreign head of state to be convicted in a U.S. court. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison for his role in the cocaine trade. This conflict signaled a major shift. As the Soviet Union began to collapse, the U.S. needed a new justification for intervention abroad. The War on Drugs provided that framework. It allowed the U.S. to use military force against "narco-terrorists" and corrupt leaders, a strategy that would later be seen in the 2026 operations involving figures like Nicolas Maduro.

Key Takeaways

• National Sovereignty vs. International Law: The invasion raised questions about whether one country has the right to invade another to arrest its leader.

• Intelligence Blowback: Noriega is a classic example of "blowback"—when a secret government asset eventually turns into a major enemy.

• The Canal: Ensuring the Panama Canal remained under U.S. influence was a hidden but major motivation for the intervention.