(Thumbnail image: Esquire)

David Cohen of the U.S. Treasury Department said this week Al Qaeda is in its weakest financial condition in years, nearly broke and struggling to maintain influence thanks to U.S. efforts to cut off donations. The Taliban, on the other hand, are still in the green due in part to the opium trade. This is causing media outlets to speculate on the Middle East power struggle and how American interests could be affected.

We’re looking at perspectives from The BBC, Australia’s ABC, USA Today, Radio Netherlands and WNYC.

New York Public Radio WNYC interviews international security analyst Bob Ayers, who disagrees. He says financial health does not directly relate to the success of a terrorist organization and this new information should not affect the U.S. strategy in the region.

“Even if al-Qaeda has less money than they had previously, do they have enough to continue to execute terrorist operations? And the answer to that is, of course they do because it’s very, very cheap and inexpensive to launch a terrorist attack…We’ve been targeting drug money for god knows 20 years and we still haven’t managed to choke that off so why do we assume we’re successful on terrorists?”

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera explains why the fight for money is so important, even when terrorist attacks aren’t very expensive.

“Al-Qaeda does need resources to operate effectively - for instance its leaders will be paying off local villagers and tribes to ensure their location is not revealed.”

Radio Netherlands Worldwide interviews a lawyer who thinks the financial disparity between the two could cause a struggle, the Taliban’s regional goals versus Al Qaeda’s worldwide jihadist goals. She speculates this could help US policymakers.

“We have an opportunity here for the carrot-and-the-stick approach. If Obama threatens a troop surge, but indicates there is a place for the Taliban at the table, then it’s up to the Taliban to basically make a choice whether they want to be pursued in an all-out counter insurgency effort, or whether they see al-Qaeda for what it is, the spoiler of their own territorial ambitions.”

Australia’s ABC quotes the author of “Funding Evil,” Rachel Ehrenfeld, who says they aren’t fighting over money.  They’re forging financial links.

“They call themselves the Taliban, they call themselves Al Qaeda, they call themselves many names, all kind of Jihadist organizations. At the same time they are training together and they are also getting funds from more or less the same sources.”

USA Today cites multiple sources that say that this funding crisis is causing al-Qaeda to transform and subsequently, move its power base from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen.  This creates more issues like Guantanamo Bay detainees, shipping channels to Saudi Arabia and spreading America’s influence in the Middle East too thin.

“Yemen is fighting an escalating Shiite rebellion along its northern border, a secessionist movement in the south, rampant poverty and a shrinking water supply — all favorable conditions for al-Qaeda and its allies to recruit and train operatives, analysts say.”

So has the effort to cut off funding to Al-Qaeda made the world safer? Or has it just created new problems?