Secret US agenda behind India-Pakistan ceasefire

Idress Aftab

Source Link

The recent revelation aired by Pakistani security analyst Imtiaz Gul renewed attention to the Nur Khan air base near Islamabad.

Gul alleges that this strategically significant facility is under de facto American operational control through a covert arrangement, with US aircraft regularly landing and taking off amid limited transparency.

He further claims that even senior Pakistani military officials are restricted from accessing certain operations at the base. These assertions have gained traction in the aftermath of India’s Operation Sindoor, which targeted terrorist sites and strategic military infrastructure in Pakistan, including the Nur Khan air base.

The incident has reignited concerns over Pakistan’s sovereignty, the extent and nature of America’s military presence and Islamabad’s evolving strategic alignments in the region.

Noor Khan air base holds immense strategic value due to its location near Islamabad and Rawalpindi—Pakistan’s political and military command hubs. Situated close to the Pakistan Army’s General Headquarters (GHQ) and the Strategic Plans Division, which manages the country’s nuclear arsenal, the base serves as the core command for Pakistan’s air mobility operations.

It houses key transport squadrons, including C-130s and CN-235s, and supports VVIP and strategic airlift missions. Its significance is further underscored by the regular presence of US military aircraft, particularly C-17 Globemasters and special operations units.

Reports indicate that certain sections of the base may be designated for exclusive US use, with limited access even for senior Pakistani officials. This consistent American footprint, combined with restricted oversight, lends credibility to Gul’s assertion that the air base could be operating under US oversight for select classified missions.

The Noor Khan air base reportedly became a flashpoint during India’s precision strike in Operation Sindoor, an event that dramatically escalated tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Could China’s J-20 Mighty Dragon Defeat the F-35?

Maya Carlin

Source Link

Beijing continues to drop more hints surrounding its upcoming J-36 stealth fighter. Earlier this week, the People’s Republic of China released a new image of the platform, displaying the aircraft’s large main weapons bay. The J-36 has been observed flying around manufacturer Chengdu’s airfield in the last half year, stimulating more speculation surrounding the jet and its potential capabilities. Until the mysterious jet actually enters service with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), it will be extremely challenging to pinpoint which released images and footage are real. For now, Beijing’s aerial prowess is centered around its Chengdu J-20 “Mighty Dragon” fighter.

Considered to represent the most advanced near-peer to the American-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, China’s Mighty Dragon airframe is a fan favorite among aviation buffs and military analysts alike. Chengdu Aircraft Corporation developed the fifth-generation jet as an air superiority fighter for the PLAAF nearly 15 years ago. However, the platform was conceptualized in the J-XX program in the 1990s. Early prototypes of the Chinese jets underwent testing in the 2010s, but the J-20 we recognize today was modified from initial models to incorporate several upgrades. The official J-20 prototype embarked on its maiden flight in 2014 and entered service with the PLAAF in 2017. Within two years, considerable numbers of Mighty Dragons became operational.

The premiere J-20s that flew with the PLAAF were powered by Russian-designed AL-31 engines. Since the engine did not meet the power requirements set forth by the PLAAF, local companies in China began working on a homegrown replacement. The WS-15 was developed to give the J-20 the thrust, supercruise, and power required to make the jet competitive with its fifth-generation foreign counterparts. While Beijing claims the WS-10 is cutting-edge, the extent of the engine’s true capabilities remains highly classified. As detailed by a defense analyst at Jane’s, “There are lingering questions over whether China has managed to achieve the thrust required on the J-20 on current payloads with the locally produced WS-10 engines.” Another expert from the Yuan Wang military think tank in Beijing mirrored this rhetoric and described the F-35’s XA100 engine as far superior to China’s WS-10.

China’s photonic chip debut to power AI, 6G and quantum computing advances, expert says

Zhang Tong

Source Link

As China joins the international drive to mass produce high-performance photonic chips, an industry pioneer said the technical performance of its chips will position the country for major advances in artificial intelligence (AI), 6G and quantum computing.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Chip Hub for Integrated Photonics Xplore (CHIPX) announced on June 5 that it had begun producing 6-inch (15.2cm) wafers for thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) photonic chips, which rely on light – or photons – rather than electrical signals for information transmission and processing.

While this is China’s first pilot production line for photonic chips, Europe and the US are already established in the field. Dutch company SMART Photonics last year upgraded its line to process 4-inch InP wafers, and California-based PsiQuantum revealed in February that it was adapting a 300mm silicon photonics line.

China’s pilot production line, built on the new TFLN material, may have come later but it is already showing gains in terms of technical performance by overcoming a global limit for high-speed optical links.

TFLN is an emerging high-performance optoelectronic material known for its ultra-fast electro-optic effect, high bandwidth and low power consumption. But its brittle nature has hindered large-scale manufacturing.

“Establishing this stable production line is the result of nearly 15 years of effort,” said Professor Jin Xianmin, director of CHIPX.

“I began working on photonic chips in 2010 and focused on lithium niobate from 2018,” Jin said. “Before this pilot production line, we spent years refining fabrication techniques, building small-scale prototypes, and solving critical issues.

“For instance, achieving efficient coupling between electrodes and the optical chip required a long and technically demanding process from design to tape-out to testing.”

BOOM! LIGHTS OUT

Frederick L. Corcoran III

Sourec Link

Power generation is the center of gravity for space capabilities, and it is vulnerable to the effects of explosive ordnance, for example, drone delivered bombs.

BOOM! And just like that the enemy has made your lights go out and severed the link between your space-enabled device and constellation of supporting satellites orbiting the Earth.

Power generation is the center of gravity for space capabilities, and it is vulnerable to the effects of explosive ordnance, for example, drone delivered bombs. Without electricity, your space or air defense capability is a brick. The more austere the environment, the greater the risk to the power generation infrastructure. This is why Army explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) needs to train with the Space Force and Air Defense Artillery today, long before Golden Dome, comes online.

Like space literacy, there is a requirement for explosive ordnance literacy and the integration of EOD doctrine with space and air defense doctrine. Where stuff lands matters. On a battlefield operating at the speed of light, two hours of downtime can affect the outcome of a battle. Collection of critical intelligence ceases, directly affecting maneuver in the multidomain fight. If you kill the power generation source or degrade the transmission of energy, there is no electricity for your space or space-enabled device.

The U.S. Space Force’s Space Warfighting A Framework for Planners describes offensive counterspace operations as orbital warfare, space link interdiction (electronic/cyber warfare), and terrestrial strike. Physically attacking space capabilities in orbit (orbital warfare) are high risk due to increased space debris affecting all spacefaring nations. In 2025, mutual assured destruction prevents outright explosive ordnance attacks on orbit as everyone is still living with the aftermath of a 2007 People’s Republic of China (PRC) anti-satellite test. This resulted in a hazardous debris ring of more than 30,000 pieces orbiting the Earth. Terrestrial attacks using explosive ordnance is the most likely threat.

The Real Threat From Iran

Kenneth M. Pollack

Source Link

Last night, the government of Israel decided to roll the dice on a military solution to Iran’s decades-long pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Given the remarkable capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces, the operation could do tremendous damage to the Iranian nuclear program. But then comes the hard part.

Iran has limited options to respond directly. The danger, however, is that Israel has opened a Pandora’s box: the worst Iranian response might also be the most likely—a decision to withdraw from its arms control commitments and build nuclear weapons in earnest. Containing those furies over the

On Iran, Trump knows he can’t afford to let Netanyahu call the shots

Daniel R. DePetris

Source Link

On Friday in the dead of night local time, Israel launched what it called “preemptive strikes” against Iran’s nuclear program. Dubbed “Nation of Lions,” the military operation was conducted unilaterally by the Israeli Air Force and reportedly hit numerous targets in Tehran, without U.S. military assistance, according to a statement from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Hours before, for the first time in 20 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors censured Iran for failing to comply with its ongoing investigation into the country’s nuclear work. Iran is likely to respond with missile or drone attacks of its own.

The Pentagon — concerned about an Israeli bombing operation against Tehran’s nuclear facilities and possible Iranian reprisals — was prepared, having ordered a drawdown of nonessential diplomatic personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Rubio said in his statement that “Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” He added, “Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel."

What, if anything, can President Donald Trump do to prevent another war in the region?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pining to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities with military force, the region seems to yet again be on the precipice of an all-out confrontation. So what, if anything, can President Donald Trump, the so-called dealmaker-in-chief who wants to spare the Middle East of further bloodshed, now do to prevent another war in the region?

Netanyahu’s position isn’t surprising. The Israeli premier has spent the last decade highlighting just how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be to Israel, the United States and the world at large. In 2015, he delivered a high-profile speech to Congress in a failed attempt to kill the Obama administration’s nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Three years later, he convinced Trump that Obama’s deal gave Tehran too much and Washington too little. That the deal put strict, verifiable limits over Iran’s entire nuclear apparatus — from the number of centrifuges Tehran could manufacture and operate to which nuclear-related equipment it could import — was deemed of little consequence.

Middle East In Crisis: Why Did Israel Jump The Gun? – OpEd

M.K. Bhadrakumar

Source Link

The Israeli Defence Forces called the aerial attack on Iran by some 200 planes in the early hours of Friday, June 13, as a “preemptive strike.” International law gives no scope to attack a country over 1000 kms away on a vague pretext of ‘self-defence’ — or, ‘an immediate operational necessity.’

The UN Charter allows acts in self-defence, but there is nothing that Iran has done in the recent period — at least after President Donald Trump returned to the White House — that can be construed as threatening Israel. Israelis claim to have significantly weakened Iran’s capacity to threaten their country.

So, call it naked aggression. The statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to distance the US from Israeli strikes stressing that “Israel took unilateral action” and had advised Washington that “they believe this action was necessary for its self-defence.”

Trump had been telling Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu that such attacks would only undermine the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. The sixth round of US-Iran negotiations is scheduled to take place in Muscat on June 15.

Rubio’s statement underscored that “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.” Rubio did not make the slightest attempt to voice US support for Israel in defending against any Iranian counterstrikes. This is extremely unusual.

The big question is, what forced Netanyahu’s hands — apart from the obvious one of distracting attention from the aggravating domestic political crisis?

One factor is that his personal equations with Trump have been steadily going south, especially since the removal of Mike Waltz on May 1 from the crucial post of National Security Advisor, a key policy-shaping role in the White House.

Israel Takes Action Against Iran – Analysis

Hudson Institute

Source Link

In the early morning hours of Friday, June 13, Israel conducted a series of unprecedented strikes inside Iran. Dubbed Operation Rising Lion, the Israeli action hit Iranian nuclear facilities and eliminated several key scientists, as well as top figures within the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus and military.

The Israeli Air Force dispatched more than 200 combat aircraft to deliver 330 munitions against roughly 100 targets deep inside Iran. While the campaign appears to have been a unilateral Israeli military action conducted without the active involvement of the United States, President Donald Trump warned Tehran that more “brutal” airstrikes would follow if Iran failed to cut a deal to end its nuclear weapons program.

Israel’s previous strikes, which destroyed a significant portion of Iran’s air defenses, paved the way for the current campaign. Operation Rising Lion pursued a decapitation strategythat involved targeting and killing the Iranian military’s command echelon, including (1) the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Hossein Salami, (2) the Iranian Armed Forces’ chief of staff, General Mohammad Bagheri, and (3) the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ air component, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh. The IRGC oversees Iran’s core disruptive military capabilities, including drone warfare and missile warfare systems, as well as the regime’s network of proxy militias.

In addition to targeting Iran’s most prominent military figures, Israel hit Iran’s nuclear sites. The facility at Natanz, an integral part of Iran’s nuclear program, suffered particularly notable damage. Additionally, Israel targeted several air defense sites, radar installations, and ballistic missile facilities, reducing Iran’s ability to retaliate quickly.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also assassinated several nuclear scientists who had played key roles in Iran’s defense technological and industrial base, including Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoon Abbasi. Ali Shamkhani, an important advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was also eliminated in the operation. An ethnic Ahvaz Arab and a shrewd politician with sharp instincts and networking skills, Shamkhani had served as Iran’s natural envoy to several Arab nations; most notably, he was Tehran’s lead negotiator when restoring diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia.

The New Middle East War

Source Link

Despite Israel’s claim that it was acting preemptively, the attacks constitute a classic preventive action, mounted against a gathering threat, rather than an imminent danger. The difference has legal and diplomatic implications, as preventive military attacks tend to be far more controversial, falling under the heading of wars of choice. Preemptive attacks are seen as a form of self-defense and tend to be accepted as necessary.

These are likely to be distinctions without meaningful differences for Israel, which has carried out such strikes (though more limited) against nascent Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs in the past. Moreover, acting against Iran plays well domestically: 

It is one of the few issues that most Israelis – deeply divided over the war in Gaza, the role of the courts in their democracy, and the country’s secular-religious balance – can agree on.

Why Israel chose to conduct this operation now has yet to be satisfactorily explained. According to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, “In recent months, 

Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponize [its] enriched uranium.” But it will be important to see if the Israeli government had new intelligence or developed a new assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions.

Israel’s Attack On Iran Stuns Military But Could Empower Tehran’s Nuclear Drive – Analysis

Kian Sharifi

Source Link

(RFE/RL) — Israel’s large-scale assault on Iran appears to have stunned the country’s military leadership and may have delayed an immediate retaliatory strike.

But it remains unclear whether it achieved its primary objective: crippling Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel claims Tehran is on the verge of weaponizing despite claims from Iran that it is solely for civilian purposes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have alleged Iran recently accelerated uranium enrichment and weaponization efforts to the point where it could produce a nuclear weapon within months — or even days.

Operation Rising Lion, as Israel has named the strikes, targeted key components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — including the Natanz enrichment facility — as well as military installations in and around Tehran.

Israeli warplanes also struck missile production facilities and residential buildings believed to house top military officials and nuclear scientists. Among those reportedly killed was Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), though Iran has not confirmed his death.

The objective, Israeli officials say, was to degrade both Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its ability to retaliate using its extensive ballistic missile arsenal — a threat Israel sees as second only to a nuclear-armed Iran.

“Netanyahu has opened a new chapter in the Middle East — an era of Israeli-Iranian nuclear war,” wrote Eran Etzion, a former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, on X.

Israel’s Iran Strike: What’s Next?

Joshua Yaphe

Source Link

After it has completed its operations in Iran, Israel will have an incredible ability to influence the future direction of the region. America can withdraw and cede control to Israel, or it can put forward a vision for the Middle East in which the United States is active and engaged. If the Trump administration simply stands by and watches the destruction take place, it will have no say in what emerges from the conflict.

Operation Rising Lion

Last night, Israel successfully carried out the first stage of a multi-level operation to decapitate Iran’s military leadership, destroy its ballistic missiles and air defenses, and demolish large parts of its nuclear program. The goal is to remove any immediate threat from Iran and establish an entirely new line of deterrence on Israel’s terms. The Israelis will likely achieve most of their tactical objectives despite the inevitable blowback from Iran.

More importantly, the events of Friday the 13th will become a turning point for an entire generation of young Iranians. They will face a wave of state-sponsored nationalistic sloganeering that barely disguises a reservoir of deep political turmoil. It will be interesting to see how they react in the coming months after the initial shock has worn off.

None of this will alter the behavior of the Islamic Republic, as I wrote back in April, at least not in the short term. Ever since the brief opening of the Khatami presidency, regime officials have sought to stifle debate and consolidate authority in the Office of the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard. They fought for that political and economic high ground, and they cannot abandon it now without the entire edifice collapsing.

Nor will it change the posture of Iran’s regional proxies, who must maintain a common front of resistance against Israel in order to preserve their relevance. Their ideological commitment to standing at the vanguard of anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Zionism gives them the outward appearance of being capable and coherent, even though they are quietly struggling to rearm and reorganize.

The Soviet MiG-29 Was Built to Deliver Destruction at High Speeds

Maya Carlin

Source Link

When the USSR first introduced its new MiG-29 fighter jet during the Cold War, Western analysts were concerned the fourth-generation aircraft could pose a real threat. The Soviets designed their NATO-designated “Fulcrum” fighter to match the capabilities of top US fighters of the time, specifically the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Considered to represent one of the most formidable Eastern Bloc fighters of the Cold War-era, the MiG-29 remains a respected platform. In the aftermath of the USSR’s dissolution, the United States was able to acquire 21 of these fighters from Moldova. Most of these jets were ultimately scrapped, but several remain on display at US military bases across the country.

In order to counter America’s advancing aerial prowess at the height of the Cold War, Soviet engineers prioritized building a competitive fourth-generation fighter. The requirement to build an Advanced Frontline Fighter grew toward the end of the 1960s, following the debut of the US Air Force’s F-X fighter program. The USSR tasked its manufacturers to field a long-range, ordnance-heavy, agile, and Mach-2.0 capable aircraft. As a result of these efforts, the MiG-29 was born. Mikoyan Design Bureau developed this platform from the ground up. The fighter series officially entered service with the Soviet Air Forces in the early 1980s.

Perhaps the greatest capability the Fulcrum provided was speed. Able to fly at speeds up to Mach 2.25 (times the speed of sound), the Soviet jet outpaced many non-supersonic platforms in its era. Armament-wise, the MiG-29 was also deemed to be cutting-edge. Equipped with seven external weapon hardpoints that can carry up to two R-27 air-to-air medium-range missiles, six R-73 and R-60 air-to-air short-range missiles, four pods of unguided rockets, and a wide range of munitions, the Soviet jet was highly lethal when first introduced. As detailed by Airforce Technology, “The R-27 medium-range air-to-air missile is supplied by the Vympel State Engineering Design Bureau, based in Moscow. The R-27 is available in two configurations: the R-27R, which has a semi-active radar homing head and inertial navigation control with a radio link, and the R-27T missile, which is fitted with an infrared homing head. The missile can intercept targets with a speed of up to 3,500km/h at altitudes from 0.02-27km, and the maximum vertical separation between the aircraft and the target is 10km.” Despite its hefty weapons load and top speed, the MiG-29 did not perform as well in combat as expected. In fact, several Fulcrums flown by Syrian pilots in the late 1980s were shot down in dogfights with Israeli planes.

How the Black Sea Can Link Europe, Ukraine, and Central Asia

Mamuka Tsereteli

Source Link

There are numerous opportunities to further integrate Europe with Central Asia and the Caucasus by upgrading shipping infrastructure around this body of water.

The strategic significance of the Black Sea in the context of ongoing Russian military aggression against Ukraine is hard to overestimate. This has long been apparent to the Russians and has shaped their behavior in occupying Crimea since 2014. The Crimean peninsula was the first target for annexation by Russia in 2014, creating a staging area for military and security impact on the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. Unfortunately, it took a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine for the United States and the West in general to fully comprehend the strategic importance of the Black Sea.

Trade is one of the key factors which forms its strategic value. The sea is a crucial link between commodity producers and global markets. The Black Sea ports of the Russian Federation are major outlets for Russia’s commodities exports. However, the Black Sea also holds vital economic significance for Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, as well as all landlocked countries connected to European, African, and global markets. It is a vital lifeline for goods like grain, coal, oil, liquefied petroleum gas, and fertilizers.

Ukraine demonstrated incredible resilience on battlefields across all frontlines, including in the Black Sea, where it destroyed a significant portion of Russian navy assets, forcing the rest of Russia’s fleet to hide in ports east of Crimea. Military efficiency allowed Ukraine to provide safe passage for commercial vessels exporting different commodities, not just grain, under the temporary deal with Russia. This helped Ukraine to reach pre-war levels of seaborne exports in 2024.

Overall trade in the Black Sea increased significantly in 2024, driven by the growth of container shipments to Romanian, Bulgarian, and Ukrainian ports, including Constanța in Romania, Varna in Bulgaria, and ports in Odesa, Chornomorsk, and Pyvdenny in Ukraine. The container volume also increased in Russia’s port of Novorossiysk and the Georgian ports of Poti and Batumi. The later ports are primarily servicing the South Caucasus and Greater Central Asia region. The growth is expected to continue, with further restoration and expansion of direct container connection to Ukrainian ports.

Four scenarios for the Middle East, from a former IDF intel chief

PATRICK TUCKER

Source Link

PRAGUE, Czech Republic — Hours after Israel began striking Iranian military leaders and nuclear sites, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence outlined four scenarios.

How they might unfold depends on the responses of the United States, China, Russia and Iran, Amos Yadlin said on Friday at the GLOBSEC security forum here. All of them, however, assume continued Israeli military action.

“It is not over yet. I think as we speak, airplanes are still flying into Iran to complete some of the job,” said Yadlin, who is currently an unofficial adviser to the Israeli government.

The former Israeli Air Force general praised the operation, describing it as a “unique” challenge given the secretive and dispersed nature of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which includes “all kinds of enrichment sites, all kind of other nuclear sites all over the country.”

The strikes were “very good on nuclear, he said, but “nuclear is not enough,” and Israel must continue to strike other Iranian military assets, especially its 3,000 or so missiles.

The first, he said, is a bilateral war between Israel and Iran, with the United States staying largely out. In describing the strikes on Friday morning, Secretary of State and acting national security advisor Marco Rubio carefully characterized them as a "unilateral" decision by Israel.

President Donald Trump had also publicly opposed an attack, yet Israeli leaders interpreted Trump’s stance as tacit approval—or at least non-interference, Yadlin said.

“I guess this was the case last night when Bibi called Trump, I think one hour before the attack,” he said.

Russia aims to ride the BRICS to AI victory

IVANA STRADNER and EMILY HESTER

Source Link

As the AI competition between the United States and China heats up, Vladimir Putin is desperate to have a horse in the race. The Russian president views AI as a core pillar of Moscow’s long-term plan to challenge Western dominance. After three years of Western sanctions devastating Russia’s economy, spurring a massive brain drain and hindering the country’s innovative capacity, Moscow has turned to the BRICS bloc, whose founding members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to build a parallel AI ecosystem. Washington must stop viewing BRICS as a politically benign organization and recognize that it is a powerful vehicle for Moscow to expand its international influence and strengthen Russia’s AI capabilities.

“Those who will secure leadership in this domain will become the global master,” Putin proclaimed in 2017. Since then, he has implemented a series of strategic directives intended to catalyze Russia’s AI sector. Putin’s 2021 National Security Strategy stresses the integration of advanced technologies, including AI, to bolster national defense and economic resilience. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 2023 Concept of the Foreign Policy emphasizes the importance of AI industry growth and strategic cooperation with BRICS. And last year, Russia updated its National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence through 2030, which outlines the formation of research and development programs to prepare “Russian artificial intelligence technologies to occupy a significant share of the global market.”

Unknowns, Knowns, and Early Predictions About Israel’s Strikes Against Iran

William F. Wechsler

Source Link

There is much we still don’t know about Israel’s strikes on Iran, including exactly what triggered Israel’s action at this particular time, the full scope of their target list so far, their effectiveness against those targets, Israel’s current plans for future phases of this campaign, and its decision matrix for further campaign expansions and escalations.

We will all learn these answers soon enough. In the meantime, we shouldn’t lose sight of what we already do know—or at least what we already can surmise with high confidence.

We know that given the nature of its regime, Iran cannot be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon or to continue to blackmail the world with its capacity to break out and acquire such weapons. This should not be a controversial position, as it has been the consistent policy of every U.S. president for decades, all of whom have threatened to use military force to enforce that policy if other options failed. Indeed, the argument for such a strike has become much stronger over the past year. Four years ago, U.S. President Joe Biden took office prioritizing negotiations with Iran, and four months ago U.S. President Donald Trump decided to do the same. But in each case, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei chose not to effectively reciprocate, an unpardonable strategic miscalculation no matter how frustrated he was by Trump’s first-term decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal negotiated by U.S. President Barack Obama. Instead, Iran chose to ignore previously established red lines and directly attack Israel with hundreds of projectiles—twice. It also tried to assassinate Trump and many former members of his administration after they left office—actions that never received the serious attention and response that they deserved. An Iranian regime that makes these decisions can never be allowed to be a nuclear power.

We should assume that Israeli leaders would have interpreted the absence of an American red light as a de facto green light.

We know as well that Iran will respond militarily to Israel’s strikes, notwithstanding the diminishment of its proxies and the likely disruption of key elements of its command-and-control mechanisms. Iran typically prefers to wait to retaliate at the time and place of its choosing. But as Israel’s campaign continues, Tehran will feel pressure to respond quickly, as evidenced already by its initial volley of drones last night. The Israelis know this, so they will try to preemptively eliminate Iranian capabilities to respond militarily. Iran’s reaction likely will include both direct attacks on Israel and retaliation via its remaining proxy groups. However, the obedience of some of those proxies is in question given current circumstances. This conclusion is reinforced by early reports that Hezbollah may be reluctant to follow Iran into another war with Israel.

This Is Israel’s War

Daniel McCarthy

Source Link

The basic fact of the Israel-Iran war is that Israel is much stronger than its opponent. Iran’s retaliatory capabilities are limited, though not trivial. Not long ago, Hezbollah would have been the fiercest of those capabilities—but Israel dealt a crippling blow to Hezbollah months ago, and the ongoing war against Hamas has kept Israel alert to terrorist dangers from Palestine. Iran has launched drones, which have proved to be a significant weapon of 21st-century warfare in Ukraine’s struggle with Russia. Yet earlier Iranian drone campaigns proved largely ineffective against Israel. This time might be different. All recent evidence, however, points to a balance of power tipped decisively in Israel’s favor.

There is no reason for this to be America’s war. Ironically, however, many opponents of US involvement in Middle East wars share a premise with supporters of intervention. The common assumption is that America really can, and should, control events in the region. One side says we must get involved to aid Israel. The other says we must get involved to restrain Israel. The latter camp takes it for granted that President Trump could simply have ordered Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran. And what’s more, President Trump should have issued such an order because Netanyahu’s war will inevitably drag America into the maelstrom. The Iranians will blame us for Israel’s actions no matter what, the story goes, so we should have prevented Israel from launching its campaign.

That line of thought is wrong. This is Israel’s war, and the decision to embark upon it was Israel’s alone. America does not and should not have a veto on other nations’ foreign policy, though there are occasions when our own interests demand that we exert influence over others. In this case, our interest lies in staying out of a conflict that Israel is perfectly capable of winning on its own. To be sure, part of Israel’s rationale for going to war is to forestall a new American agreement with Iran on the latter’s nuclear program. But just as we should not view ourselves as the managers of Israel’s foreign policy, we need not consider ourselves Iran’s keepers, either. Nuclear nonproliferation is an admirable ideal, yet in the long run it is doomed to fail. More dangerous states than Iran already possess nuclear weapons. The Israelis may not see it that way—Iran is their enemy while neither China, North Korea, nor Russia is. We Americans, however, have faced nuclear opponents for more than seven decades. All that time deterrence has worked. It’s even working in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Israel Has Struck. Now Trump Must Lead.

Andrew King

Source Link

This morning, the world changed.

After years of escalating threats, rocket fire, proxy wars, and nuclear brinkmanship, Israel struck deep into Iran—targeting nuclear infrastructure and military assets. It was a historic declaration: enough is enough. The era of appeasement is over.

Let’s call it what it is: one of the most courageous acts of leadership by any nation in our time. And tragically, it had to be done alone.

This was not just a defensive strike. It was a moment of clarity, conviction, and courage. It came not from Washington, not from Brussels—but from a small democratic nation surrounded by enemies, standing alone that had to confront the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. For too long, the U.S. and Europe played for time. Time that Iran used to enrich uranium, arm Russia, fund terror, and destabilize every corner of the globe.

This was not symbolic grandstanding. Israel was not just acting in its own defense. It was striking on behalf of the free world – it was on behalf of peace, security, and civilization itself.

For too long, regime change in Iran has been treated like a dirty word in polite diplomatic circles. Today, that fiction is over. Israel took action—unilaterally, decisively, and morally.

The fact that Israel is standing alone is equally real and equally tragic.

Israel’s actions are both heroic and damning. A searing indictment of the Biden administration, and equally shameful to generations of dithering European and Western leaders who allowed Iran to rise unchecked while peddling delusions of diplomacy, while Iran defied every global agreement. Iran was censured by the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors—just this week—for blatant nuclear violations, which concluded it had enriched sufficient uranium to supply 9-10 nuclear warheads.

Donald Trump is losing control of American foreign policy

Christopher S Chivvis

Source Link

Iran and the US have stood at a crossroads in recent weeks. Down one path lay negotiations that, while difficult, promised benefits to the citizens of both countries. Down the other path, a protracted war that promised little more than destruction.

Back in 2018, Donald Trump had blocked the diplomatic path by tearing up the existing nuclear agreement with Iran – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. But since beginning his second term in January he has been surprisingly open to negotiations with Tehran. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seemed ready to go along.

But the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has now decided for them in favor of the path of war, and despite initial hesitation, Trump now appears to be following him. Though uniquely positioned to rein in Netanyahu – more than any US president in decades – Trump has jumped on his bandwagon.

After entering office, Trump rightly pursued a deal that would offer Iran sanctions relief in return for an end to its nuclear weapons program. This deal would have served the interests of both parties. The risk of an Iranian nuclear breakout would have been greatly reduced, thus reducing pressure on other regional and global powers to pursue nuclear weapons themselves. Global energy markets would have benefited. The United States could have meanwhile pursued the drawdown of its military forces in the region, thus furthering a goal of every US president since Barack Obama. Improved US relations with Iran would also have helped to complicate Iran’s deepening ties to Russia and China.

But the Israeli government wanted none of this and has therefore spoiled the Trump administration’s negotiations. The Israeli government claims that Iran was days away from a bomb and that it had no choice but to attack. This is hard to believe. For years, experts, including the US intelligence community, have estimated it would take months if not years for Iran to not only produce enough highly enriched uranium but to also build a bomb with it. If this timeline had changed in recent days, the US would almost certainly have joined Israel in these strikes.

Has Israel Crossed the Rubicon?

Greg Priddy

Source Link

It would be a mistake to assume that Israel’s “Friday the 13” strikes on Iran will not trigger further escalation.

It has finally happened. Israel struck Iran’s nuclear sites and military leadership and is carrying out an air campaign to degrade their capabilities further. As one might expect from Israeli military operations, they appear to have been meticulously planned and startlingly effective. After two decades in which policymakers, analysts, and pundits have continuously opined on what would happen—from a democratic uprising in Tehran to utter devastation and an oil-led recession—we will now get to see these assumptions put to the test over the coming weeks.

In all of this, the top tier of the Trump administration, perhaps excluding Steven Witkoff at the beginning of negotiations, has seemed woefully disconnected from reality. The first theory that has fallen by the wayside is that Iran would give up uranium enrichment completely if it faced a credible and immediate threat of massive force. The Trump team publicly spun the early rounds of talks in a positive direction.

Still, there was never any real movement from either side on the core question of whether Iran would be permitted to keep enrichment in the long term. Trump seems to have genuinely thought that because he is perceived as a “stronger” leader than his predecessors, he could secure concessions from Iran that had eluded President Barack Obama.

Another assumption Trump is making, and which is being tested now, is that Iran may be open to coming back to the negotiating table. Trump’s posts on Truth Social today have more or less invited Iran’s leaders to crawl back to the table to capitulate “before there is nothing left.” Trump even told Axios that the Israeli strikes could “help [him] make a deal with Iran.” It is true, of course, that in history, many negotiations have taken place after a limited amount of warfare had clarified the power relationship between the belligerents and forced one side to calculate that it would be better to negotiate rather than fight on.

Israel's Strikes On Iran Were Inevitable | Opinion

Ilan Berman

Source Link

In the early morning hours of June 13, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched Operation Rising Lion—a sustained campaign of airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear program. That effort is still ongoing; Israeli officials have indicated that the strikes will come in multiple waves, over multiple days, as the country works to erode Iran's extensive nuclear enterprise and hobble any potential regime retaliation.

The current campaign is dramatic, but it can hardly be said to be a surprise. Israeli officials warned for years that a nuclearizing Iran was an existential threat to the Jewish state, and might require direct military action to mitigate. So, too, had Iran-watchers tracking the advancing state of the Islamic Republic's nuclear effort. (My first book on Iran, Tehran Rising, which dealt extensively with the probability of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program, was published two decades ago, in the summer of 2005.)

Nevertheless, the timing of Israel's strike was unexpected, coming amid efforts by the Trump administration to negotiate a more durable deal with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program. Conventional assumptions held that Israel will refrain from any action until those negotiations either failed altogether or concluded in unsatisfactory fashion—and that, if a deal with the Islamic Republic was struck, no Israeli military action would be forthcoming at all.

So what happened, precisely? While additional details will undoubtedly be disclosed in the coming days, we already know a substantial amount about what transpired, and why.

First, Israel's decision to strike was based on accumulated intelligence information that Iran had accelerated its efforts to develop a nuclear device in recent months, and as a result was now approaching the "point of no return" in terms of its ability to both enrich and to weaponize uranium.

Second, Israel's large-scale campaign—entailing the use of some 200 fighter aircraft—involved strikes on key nuclear sites, including the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, a research facility in Tabriz, and reactors in both Arak and Khondab. It also hit several defense-industrial nodes, including in Kermanshah and Isfahan.

Emergence Of Warning Signs In The Global Financial System – Analysis

Anbound

Source Link

Recently, the global financial sector, particularly the banking industry, has shown multiple signs of distress. These developments involve not only regional financial institutions but also several internationally renowned banks. It is evident that anxiety is mounting across the global banking landscape, potentially signaling the emergence of systemic risks in the industry.

Some notable recent indicators of risk within the banking sector include:

First, several regionally significant financial institutions have reported substantial losses. For example, Norinchukin Bank of Japan, which has a history spanning over a century, recorded a net loss of JPY 1.8078 trillion in fiscal year 2024, the largest loss in its history. In its annual report, the bank attributed the loss to heightened uncertainty in the market outlook caused by the Trump administration, 

which has kept long-term interest rates elevated in global bond markets. Due to a misjudgment that interest rates would decline, the bank made erroneous bets on U.S. and European bonds. Over the past year, it was forced to sell more than JPY 10 trillion worth of these bonds, resulting in massive losses. 

This issue is not confined to Japan. The volatility in long-term bond yields has affected other regions as well. These developments highlight not only the vulnerability of traditionally perceived “safe haven” assets like sovereign bonds in times of economic uncertainty, but also indicate the deep interconnectedness of today’s global financial markets. The Federal Reserve, on one side, 

has maintained a firm stance against cutting interest rates, signaling a clear divergence from the Trump administration’s position. On the other side are the major purchasers of U.S. Treasuries, including banks, who had been anticipating rate cuts. The increasingly tense standoff between a Fed unwilling to ease and a Trump administration pushing for lower rates has exacerbated risks in the bond and interest rate markets, prompting many participants to exit.

The Same Old Fantasies Behind AI and New Technology

Source Link

Adam Becker’s “More Everything Forever” begins by describing the ideas of Eliezer Yudkowsky, an AI guru who Sam Altman thinks deserves a Nobel Prize. Yudkowsky’s ambitions for humanity include “[p]erfect health, immortality,” and a future in which “[i]f you imagine something that’s worse than mansions with robotic servants for everyone, you are not being ambitious enough.” According to Yudkowsky and his peers, a “glorious transhumanist future” awaits us if we get AI right, although we face extinction if we get it wrong.

“AI” and “transhumanist” are new terms for rather older ambitions. As the seedy occultist Dr. Trelawney remarks in Anthony Powell’s 1962 novel, “The Kindly Ones,” “[t]o be forever rich, forever young, never to die … Such was in every age the dream of the alchemist.” Renaissance alchemists won the support of monarchs like Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor who squandered his realm’s money on a futile quest to discover the Philosopher’s Stone. Now, as Becker explains, AGI, or artificial general intelligence, has become the means through which philosophers might transubstantiate our mundane reality into a realm in which the apparently impossible becomes possible: living forever, raising the dead, and remaking the universe in the shape of humanity.

These ideas would be a curiosity, if they weren’t reshaping the world, and policymakers’ understanding of national security. Our epoch is quite as strange as Rudolf II’s Prague. Like a John Crowley novel, it has its own deathless golems and wizards who hope to speak to divine beings through a medium. In Ezra Klein’s description, AI’s coders see themselves as casting spells of summoning, even if they are not sure what lurks on the other side of the portal.

Just as centuries ago, rulers listen to them. The Biden administration bet Americans’ national security on the proposition that AGI was right around the corner, while the Trump administration and its allies in the Gulf seem to believe that AI will help make a world where they will be in charge.

Becker’s excellent and lively book is not about AI as a working technology. It has little to say about the combinations of machine learning and “neural networks” (statistical processing engines that loosely resemble systems of neurons) that, for example, are used to simulate protein folding and complex weather systems. Instead, it is about the idea of AI and other closely related ideas. If it sometimes feels as though we live in a dark self-ramifying fairy tale, it is because the often mundane realities of AI have become interwoven with a set of fantastical notions that long predate the working technologies we have today.

Houthis In Somalia: Friends With Technological Benefits? – Analysis

Karen Allen

Source Link

Yemen’s Ansar Allah – commonly known as the Houthis – and Somalia’s two proscribed terrorist organisations, al-Shabaab and Islamic State in Somalia (IS Somalia), are reportedly deepening ties.

How could this impact the tools of war, especially lethal drone technology, which is increasingly a hallmark of Ansar Allah’s operations backed by its powerful ally, Iran? Will the relationship with the United Nations (UN)-sanctioned group influence how Somalia’s violent extremist groups fight or are perceived regionally?

Technology transfer between armed groups is better understood since the proliferation of improvised explosive devices following conflicts in Iraq (2002) and Afghanistan (2001-2021). Migration of foreign fighters and access to 3D printing have ramped up these groups’ ability to exploit arms trafficking channels, share knowledge, access components or inspire others. The proliferation of military-grade drones in Africa makes this an even more crowded space.

Al-Shabaab has to date used drones largely for propaganda, intelligence and surveillance rather than attacks. UN monitors describe its relationship with Ansar Allah as ‘transactional or opportunistic’ – the pair having shared interests in smuggling routes and access to revenue streams.

Al-Shabaab gets access to sophisticated arms, while Ansar Allah gets smuggling routes and financial opportunities

However, there is evidence that al-Shabaab may seek a more lethal use of drones. The UN monitors note that in meetings between the two groups in 2024, al-Shabaab’s leadership requested ‘advanced weapons and training’ from Ansar Allah.

10 Best Tanks on the Battlefield Fighting Right Now

TNI Staff

Source Link

10 Best Tanks on the Battlefield – The Key Points and SummaryBattlefield Reality vs. Technology: Highly advanced tanks like Russia’s T-14 Armata and cutting-edge Western MBTs often prove too complex and expensive for large-scale, sustained warfare. Many militaries fall back on simpler, proven designs.

Mass Production Trumps Sophistication: The Russian T-72 tops the list not because it’s the most high-tech, but because it’s cheap, durable, and easily mass-produced. Its sheer numbers and battlefield presence make it more decisive than flashier designs.

Western Tank Limitations: Tanks like the Leopard II, Challenger 2/3, and M1 Abrams offer high performance, but their cost, weight, and limited production capacity reduce long-term battlefield sustainability.

Modern Threat Environment: Main battle tanks now face threats from drones, loitering munitions, Javelins, and IEDs. Survivability, field repairability, and quantity are often more important than cutting-edge specs.

Regional Success Stories: Platforms like the K2 Black Panther and Merkava V excel within specific environments and doctrine but may not scale easily for prolonged or global conflicts.

Main battle tanks (MBTs) still play a critical role in modern warfare, but the criteria for what makes a tank “the best” have changed. In today’s combat zones, it’s not just about who has the most firepower or thickest armor. It’s about which platforms can survive drone swarms, precision-guided munitions, and high rates of attrition. In short, staying power matters more than cutting-edge tech.

Modern Tank Requirements

Throughout history, tank design has been a balance between sophistication and sustainability. During WWII, German tanks like the Panther and Tiger were mechanically impressive but slow and expensive to build. Meanwhile, the U.S. Sherman was easier to produce and field at scale, and that made all the difference in prolonged conflict.