michael o'hanlon there he's a senior fellow and director of research at the brookings institution in washington let's now take a look at some other stories making headlines around the world at this hour iran says it will start and rich in uranium up to 60 percent purity it's a big step towards weapons grade uranium tear on made the announcement 2 days after an explosion it blames on israel hit a key nuclear facility islamic republic deny its seeking to build a nuclear bomb or to. work enough os those acts of former president blaise come powerade has been charged with complicity in the murder of his crew to assess or cold power it will have to stand trial in connection with the killing of thomas' son carra when he ousted in a 987 coup the circumstances behind some cars deaths have been shrouded in secrecy . but means president patrice tome has won reelection early results from sunday's poll in the west african nation indicate he took more than 85 percent of the vote alone had previously vowed to serve just one term in office critics accuse him of rigging the race by sidelining opposit

lots of movement there for some analysis let's talk to michael o'hanlon he's a senior fellow and director of research at the brookings institution in washington mr o'hanlon welcome to d.w. good to have you with us move on afghanistan it's certainly full of symbolism in those september 11th date marks 20 years since the $911.00 attacks on the u.s. does afghanistan mark a 20 year failure for america. well you know i like the way you ask that because this is a time for 11 symbolism doesn't really work for me i don't really know what message that biden ministration is trying to send by this policy that i think is a big mistake handing over the leverage and the odds in favor of the taliban at a time when the peace process was really just beginning by september 11th are we trying to say there were tired after 20 years and that's all we can muster are we somehow claiming to honor the anniversary or the legacy or the sacrifice or the loss of those who died that day i don't really get it and i'm really quite confused and surprised by this decision i thought they would have at least spent 2 or 3 ye

lots of movement there for some analysis let's talk to michael o'hanlon he's a senior fellow and director of research at the brookings institution in washington mr o'hanlon welcome to w. good to have you with us by move on afghanistan is certainly full of symbolism the september 11th date marks 20 years since the $911.00 attacks on the u.s. does afghanistan mark a 20 year failure for america. well you know i like the way you ask that because this is a time for 11 symbolism doesn't really work for me i don't really know what message the biden ministration is trying to send by this policy that i think is a big mistake handing over the leverage and the odds in favor of the taleban at a time when the peace process was really just beginning by september 11th are we trying to say there were tired after 20 years and that's all we can muster are we somehow claiming to honor the anniversary or the legacy or the sacrifice or the loss of those who died that day i don't really get it and i'm really quite confused and surprised by this decision i thought they would have at least spent 2 or 3 years at

more than 2,000 killed michael o'hanlon senior fellow at the brookings institution. ithdrawal. the white house defends that by saying a conditions based approach means you'll stay in afghanistan forever. fair point >> well, shepherd, we haven't given the peace process a serious chance as you'll recall, it really began with president trump's february 29 decision of last year, the peace accord with the taliban, at least the first step towards a possible accord. and all that did was start the clock ticking on negotiations which had barely begun so to me even though we're 20 years in, we are about 1 or 2 months into a serious peace process and i think it's premature to give up on that because pulling out means the taliban will feel they have the upper hand they will have the upper hand and they won't be in the mood for any kind of compromise protecting women's rights or protecting the peace process so i'm quite flummoxed by this decision even though i understand the frustration, we should have given the peace process a serious try and that would have required staying at t

michael o'hanlon good to see you. there are no conditions needed for this withdrawal.ach means you'll stay in afghanistan forever. fair point be? >> well, shepherd, we haven't given the peace process a chance it began with president trump's february 29 decision of last year, the peace accord with the taliban, at least the first step towards a possible accord, and all that did was start the clock ticking on negotiations which had barely gun so to me even though we're 20 years in, we are about 1 or 2 months into a serious peace process and i think it's premature to give up on that because pulling out means the 258ly ly -- taliban will feel y have the upper hand. they will have the upper hand. so i'm quite flummoxed by this decision even though i understand the frustration, we should have given the peace process a serious try and that would have required staying at this modest level, 97% less, shepherd, than where we had been at the peak. we only have 3,000 troops in afghanistan. that was and is a sustainable level to support a peace process. i think it's a mistake. >> as