top of page

Israel-Hamas Conflict: Lessons from Afghanistan

  • Nov 23, 2023
  • 2 min read

Updated: Mar 10, 2025

Omer Niazi | Published at The National Interest

In the present landscape of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the Israel-Hamas conflict stands as a volatile fuse. If mishandled, it threatens to spark a more expansive regional conflagration. The lessons from Afghanistan remain a stark reminder of the repercussions of post-9/11 interventions that lacked a clear endgame strategy, eventually spiraling into a conflict spanning two decades.

The current posture toward the Israel-Hamas conflict appears heavily tilted toward military measures. If recent history teaches us anything, including the Afghanistan aftermath, it’s that military solutions without long-term political strategy often offer temporary relief at best, leaving deep-seated issues unresolved.

For over two decades, the U.S. policy apparatus resisted recognizing the necessity of a negotiated settlement to end the Afghanistan war—a conflict that resulted in nearly 176,000 casualties. In the aftermath of 9/11 and during the early stages of the conflict with the Taliban, the United States and its allies sidestepped diplomatic engagements, opting instead for a predominantly military strategy despite calls by policymakers in DC acknowledging that there was no military solution to the war. Senior State Department officials advocated for diplomacy and negotiation with the Taliban to President George W. Bush as the United States’ initial response to 9/11. The United States chose to declare war.

A decade later, conflicting parties entered into a stage of stalemate that might have encouraged yet another opportunity for a negotiated settlement. Still, the United States disregarded the potential for a peaceful settlement and continued to pursue military victory over the Taliban. By 2018, when the United States finally prioritized negotiations toward a political settlement, the clock had already run out. Two decades of conflict had driven the parties to such distant poles that neither side could muster the requisite trust or willingness to compromise necessary to achieve a political settlement. 

The absence of a long-term political strategy to guide U.S. military strategy, combined with its inability to pursue a path of diplomacy and negotiation early on, fueled the Afghan conflict. A widely held public opinion summarizes it all—it took four U.S. presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and twenty years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

To cite this article, please use the following reference: Omer Niazi, "Israel-Hamas Conflict: Lessons for Afghanistan," The National Interest, November 27, 2023.



 
 

Join the Council's Network

Sign up to receive the Council's latest research, analysis, and commentary, and to stay informed about its work.

By signing up, you agree to receive email updates from the Council on International Law, Order, and Security and to our Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Council on International Law, Order, and Security (CILOS) is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institution based in Washington, DC, working at the intersection of international law, international order, and international security. It brings together senior leaders, scholars, and practitioners to inform policy and strategic thinking and to contribute to debate on global order and security.

Council on International Law Order and Security CILOS Logo

© 2026 Council on International Law, Order, and Security.​​​

Washington D.C. Office

Media Inquiries

General Inquiries

Telephone

20 F Street, Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20001

All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

bottom of page