29 July 2025

Forecasting the Fifth Wave: Emerging Terrorist Threats in a Changing World

Mahmut Cengiz 

The international defense community consistently struggles to predict the changing landscape of global terrorism. Counterterrorism practitioners have frequently been reactive rather than proactive, while the academic community has faced challenges in developing models that reflect terrorism’s complex and dynamic nature. These deficiencies led to the failure to anticipate and prevent major terrorist incidents such as the September 11 attacks in 2001, the 2002 Bali bombings

the 2015 Paris attacks, and most recently, Hamas’s coordinated attacks on October 7, 2023. This article builds on David Rapoport’s theory of the “four waves” of terrorism to explore a potential “fifth wave.” Analysis of data from the Global Terrorism Trends and Analysis Center (GTTAC) indicates that the strongest candidates for this fifth wave are the continuation of the religious wave—especially the Salafi-jihadist interpretation, and the activities of Iran-backed terrorist groups.

David Rapoport’s theory of the four waves of modern terrorism presents a typology grounded in political orientation and influenced by the historical, cultural, and ideological conditions of distinct periods characterized by heightened terrorist activity. A “wave” denotes a generational cycle of terrorism unified by a shared ideological drive, with revolutionary change serving as the central objective in each phase. Rapoport identifies four major waves: the Anarchist (1880–1920), Anti-Colonial (1920–1960), New Left (1960–1980), and Religious (1980–ongoing).

The first, the Anarchist Wave began in Russia and is widely recognized as the starting point of modern terrorism. It emerged from deep dissatisfaction with the slow pace of political reform, particularly frustration with entrenched authoritarian systems and the persistence of state power, which anarchists sought to dismantle in favor of stateless, egalitarian alternatives, and was characterized by the tactical use of dynamite and the assassination of high-ranking officials, including heads of state. 

Implications of ISKP’s Declaration of War Against the Baloch Liberation Army

Abdul Basit

On July 20, the Voice of Khorasan, a pro-Taliban and anti-Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP) media outlet, claimed that the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) had eliminated the last remaining ISKP fighters in Balochistan’s Mastung district. This was preceded by a 36-minute Pashtu-language video put out by Al Azaim Foundation, the ISKP’s propaganda arm, on May 25, detailing a BLA raid in Mastung that killed 30 ISKP fighters. In the video, ISKP vowed retaliation against the BLA, other Baloch separatist groups, as well as Baloch and Pashtun nationalist groups like the Baloch Yakjehti Council (BYC) and the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM).

Since its return to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban regime has carried out ruthless crackdowns on ISKP both at the operational and ideological levels. It arrested and killed several of ISKP’s top commanders and leaders. Simultaneously, the Taliban launched Al-Mirsad, a multilingual online portal, which provides robust ideological rebuttals of ISKP’s ideological propaganda along with running reports of the Taliban’s crackdown against the ISKP. These developments forced ISKP to relocate its assets and fighters across the border in Pakistan.In Pakistan, ISKP has a strong presence in Bajaur and Mastung districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces, respectively.

It was natural for the terror group to set up its presence in Mastung as claimed in the May 25 video. Balochistan is crucial for ISKP for two reasons. First, Balochistan is home to key anti-Shia and anti-Iran Sunni extremist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish al-Adl. In the past, ISKP has leveraged its alliances with these groups to survive and persist.

Second, Balochistan’s strategic location at the confluence of South and Central Asia makes it a key transit and logistical hub for ISKP. In the last couple of years, ISKP has recruited from Central Asia and carried out attacks in Russia, Iran, and Turkiye. The terror group’s network stretches from Turkiye and Iran to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Russia through Balochistan. Reportedly, ISKP fighters transit through Balochistan to travel between these countries and beyond.

China’s Overlooked AI Strategy


In early 2025, the Chinese company DeepSeek released its R1 artificial intelligence model, sending shock waves throughout policy circles in the United States. Despite U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors, the company had managed to develop a customizable open technology that could compete with some of the most advanced proprietary American AI models, and many feared that U.S. leadership in AI might soon be eclipsed. Now, another Chinese company, Moonshot AI, has released a state-of-the-art open model, Kimi K2, that is capable of autonomously achieving complex tasks, prompting some commentators to call it another DeepSeek moment.

But the threat posed by Chinese open models is not simply about China catching up to the United States in the AI race. It is also about the broader global adoption of AI. For the month of January 2025, the DeepSeek R1 app had 33 million active users across the world; by April, that number had nearly tripled to 97 million. Moreover, the CEO of the open-model repository Hugging Face noted that over 500 derivative versions of the original R1 model had been downloaded a combined total of 2.5 million times in January. 

In other words, derivative versions of R1, which are customized and tailored specifically from the original model to meet users’ needs, were downloaded five times as often as R1 itself, underscoring the value users saw in R1’s adaptability. Given this extraordinary interest, it has become clear that the low-cost, open-model approach favored by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and other Chinese companies could offer China an overwhelming advantage in meeting researcher demand for cutting-edge models, particularly in developing countries that are eager to access AI’s benefits.

The question of which country’s AI models achieve global preeminence has policy implications that extend beyond market competition or military applications. Open models such as R1 and Kimi K2 offer users around the world a chance to develop AI systems that can be customized for local needs, including in areas such as health care, education, and the workforce, at a lower cost than their American counterparts. In this sense, the greatest advantage open models could offer China may be in the realm of soft power. 

Jaishankar’s China Visit: The Paradox Of China-India Relations – Analysis

Institute of South Asian Studies

The first visit by India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to China after five years signals continued steady improvement in China-India relations after a cautious beginning in October 2024, as Jaishankar himself recognised, and is gaining momentum beyond a mere thaw.

Jaishankar was in China for the foreign ministers’ meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Significantly, Beijing received him with particular care and organised bilateral meetings not only with his counterpart, Wang Yi, but also with Vice President Han Zheng. The visit, one of several in less than two months, indicates that recent tensions over Beijing’s support for Pakistan in its May 2025 conflict with India and over the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation have not derailed the process of thawing relations.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s likely visit to China for a SCO leaders’ summit in August 2025 will be the high point of this process. It will indicate that the initial work of restoring basic normalcy in China-India relations has been completed and the border has sufficiently stabilised. Of course, then the hard work of making substantive progress in relations and de-escalating the border dispute will begin.

Beyond symbolising the thaw in Sino-Indian relations, Jaishankar’s visit demonstrates a paradox. China and India have greater interest and space to cooperate more amid a fast-shifting global environment, but are constantly hampered by contentious bilateral issues.

On one hand, the visit and the thaw behind it have opened space for more global cooperation between New Delhi and Beijing. During his meetings in China, Jaishankar spoke about the “very complex” international situation, while in his official address, he described growing “economic instability” in the world and urged the SCO to “stabilise the global order” and “address longstanding challenges that threaten [their] collective interests”. He also highlighted the rise of multipolarity, which officially both China and India pursue, and the SCO’s key role in advancing it. In short, Jaishankar underscored the need for the two Asian giants to cooperate on a global level in response to the growing global instability.

Pentagon lags behind China in realizing strategies for cognitive warfare, Senate report finds

Bill Gertz

A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.

The Pentagon lacks “strategic clarity” when it comes to conducting the cognitive warfare that analysts see as necessary for confronting China, according to the Senate Armed Services Committee.The committee’s report on the fiscal 2026 defense authorization bill warns that despite congressional action, the Pentagon and military services remain unclear in defining this new domain of nonkinetic warfare, which is a major focus of China’s People’s Liberation Army.

The panel wants the Pentagon to produce a report for Congress on cognitive warfare.Chinese cognitive warfare involves an array of weaponry ranging from “brain control” arms, to sophisticated information warfare operations. The goal, according to the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military, is to manipulate information to attack an adversary’s decision-making abilities.

“The PLA is exploring a range of ‘neurocognitive warfare’ capabilities that exploit adversaries using neuroscience and psychology,” the latest report said.Examples include plans to use artificial intelligence-powered deepfake videos to mislead and confuse military and political leaders during conflicts, and psychological warfare to demoralize U.S. troops and polarize society.PLA researchers are working on advanced voice synthesis tools that will be used for low-cost, high-impact disinformation campaigns to defeat enemies without conventional conflict.

The committee report said the global security landscape is rapidly evolving with the increasing sophistication of information-centric, strategic threats.China, for example, “is actively engaged in developing what it terms ‘informatized warfare’ and ‘intelligentized warfare,’ with a strong emphasis on cognitive domain operations, involving the integration of information warfare across military and civilian sectors and viewing information as a critical domain for achieving strategic advantage in great power competition,” the report said.

China puts new restrictions on EV battery technology in latest move to consolidate dominance

John Liu

China has put export restrictions on technologies critical for producing electric vehicle batteries, in a move to consolidate its dominance in the sector that has contributed to the country’s lead in the global EV race.

Several technologies used to manufacture EV batteries and process lithium, a critical mineral for batteries, were added to the government’s export control list.Inclusion on the list means transferring the technologies overseas – such as through trade, investment, or technological cooperation – will require a government-issued license, according to a statement by the country’s Commerce Ministry.

The new controls mirror similar restrictions introduced just three months ago on certain rare earth elements and their magnets – critical materials used not only in EV production, but also in consumer electronics and military equipment such as fighter jets. China’s dominance of the rare earths supply chain has emerged as among its most potent tools in a renewed trade war with the United States.

China has emerged as a leading player in the competitive global EV market, thanks in part to its ability to develop high-performance, cost-effective batteries through its comprehensive supply chain, from raw material processing to battery manufacturing.

Huge numbers of car manufacturers around the world use Chinese EV batteries in their vehicles. Chinese EV battery makers accounted for at least 67% of the global market share, according to SNE Research, a market research and consultancy firm.

First proposed in January, the latest licensing requirements have cast uncertainty over Chinese EV makers’ overseas expansion plans, particularly as markets like the European Union have employed tariffs on Chinese car exports to push them to set up shop there. Many Chinese battery makers also have plans to localize production in markets such as Southeast Asia and the US.

Pie in the Sky: The Robotic Loyal Wingman


This is partly because the Navy and the Air Force have failed to invest in the manned combat aircraft that would be necessary to defeat China. Not incorrectly, the two services point to constrained budgets and competing priorities. Nevertheless, the cost of creating the air power necessary to beat China is trivial compared with the impossible-to-imagine cost of losing the war.

Of course, our military leaders do not want to lose to China’s growing and increasingly capable air and naval forces. So, because they have failed to make a compelling case for the funding to create the capabilities to counter China, they have embraced an asymmetric solution: the loyal wingman. Unmanned aircraft—robots—that will fly missions together with manned aircraft. Envisioned as inexpensive force multipliers imbued with advanced AI, these wingmen are intended to perform many of the same missions as manned aircraft, but without carrying any pesky humans and at a fraction of the cost.

The problem is that neither the real world nor physics works that way.Consider that the loyal wingman must be roughly the same size as a manned aircraft if it is to perform the same missions. This is because it will have to carry enough fuel to reach the same area of operations, as well as the same payload: bombs, missiles, and sensors. And it will need a powerful—and expensive—engine. The robot does not have to carry a human, but it does have to carry all the bits and pieces that make it function without that human. And it must have a unique (read, pricey) communication suite to maintain contact with its flesh-and-blood overlords.

Moreover, it must possess the same performance characteristics as the manned aircraft it supports—that is, it must be able to go as fast, as far, and as high. And if it is going to be useful against China, it must have some degree of survivability or stealth.Perhaps most expensive of all will be the AI to ensure the system behaves exactly as it should every single moment. Robot vacuum owners roll their eyes at that idea. And those vacuums don’t carry bombs and missiles.


The Chinese Communist Party's Strategic Engagement in South Asia


In the first two weeks of 2025, Vice-Minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (IDCPC) Sun Haiyan met with the Bangladeshi and Nepali ambassadors to China. This was in line with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deploying an increasingly sophisticated party-to-party diplomatic strategy across South Asia, revealing a comprehensive approach to regional influence that extends beyond traditional state-to-state relations. Through the IDCPC, which is also known as the International Liaison Department, Beijing has developed a systematic framework for building and maintaining influence through party-level relationships in South Asia, demonstrated by an intensive series of diplomatic engagements throughout 2024.

The IDCPC, established in 1951, serves as the CCP's primary organ for conducting relations with foreign political parties and organisations. While technically separate from China's state diplomatic apparatus under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the IDCPC plays a crucial and complementary role in advancing Chinese foreign policy objectives. The department maintains contacts with hundreds of political parties across the globe and has evolved from its original focus on communist and socialist parties to engage with a broad spectrum of political organisations. Under Minister Liu Jianchao's leadership, the IDCPC has taken on an increasingly prominent role in China's international engagement strategy, particularly in developing regions like South Asia where party-to-party relationships offer unique channels for influence building.

The IDCPC's organisational structure reveals a carefully calibrated approach to diplomatic engagement. At the helm, Liu handles strategic-level interactions, while Vice-Minister Sun manages regular diplomatic engagements across the region. Liu, appointed in 2022, has taken a more active diplomatic role than his predecessor and could become the country’s next foreign minister. Sun spent the majority of her career at the IDCP. Prior to her appointment as the first female vice-minister of the IDCPC in 2023, she was the Chinese ambassador to Singapore.

This two-tier system enables China to maintain both high-level strategic dialogue and consistent working-level engagement. For instance, when engaging with Pakistan, Liu led the China–­­­­Pakistan Political Parties Forum and the third meeting of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor Political Parties Joint Consultation Mechanism, while Sun handled regular interactions with delegations from various Pakistani political parties.

Thai-Cambodian Clashes Along Border After Months Of Building Tensions – OpEd

Murray Hunter

On Thursday July 24, Cambodia and Thai forces clashed for over 8 hours. This is after a Thai soldier was maned by a mine planted on what is claimed as Thai territory at Ta Muen Thom Temple in Surin province.Early on the morning of July 24 Cambodian drones were seen circling over Ta Muen Thom Temple area. Cambodian troops then allegedly opened fire on Thai troops at the temple in a skirmish that lasted over an hour. Sporadic fire erupted all along the Thai-Cambodia border, up to the Emerald Triangle, 

being the border between Lao-Thai-Cambodia. By 9.30am Cambodian artillery fire started hitting houses in the Kantharalak Distrist in Sisaket province. BM-21 rockets were forced by the Cambodians from a base in Khao Laem Hill in Cambodia, hitting 6 km south in the Chong Chom border town in Thailand. Rocket attacks from Cambodia also opened up upon border areas in Surin, Ubon Ratchatthani, and Sisaket provinces.

Cambodian troops attempted to enter into Thailand. The Thais responded with artillery fire. At 11.00 am the Thai Air Force sent in F-16 fighter jets to attack Cambodian military bases.As a result of the battles along the border, a hospital in Surin province was hit by Cambodian missiles, a PTT Petrol Station was hit in Kantharalak, and residential areas in Sisaket, Surin were hit by rockets and artillery. The government has called for Thais to evacuate some adjacent border areas, where hotels in towns like Buriram, Surin, Sisaket, and Ubom Ratchatthani are full. Many businesses and affected areas have closed until further notice.

On the Thai side there are reports of 14 dead and many more injured, mainly civilians. Cambodian territory opposite the Thai border areas has a sparse population and there have so been no casualties reported.Militaries in control of disputeBoth the Cambodian and Thai civilian governments have little direct control of the situation. There is a civilian power vacuum in the border dispute as decisions and operations are in the hands of others.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System – Analysis


According to the Department of Defense (DOD), the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is a key element of U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD). THAAD employs interceptor missiles, using “hit-to-kill” technology, to destroy threat missiles.

Reportedly, THAAD is capable of engaging targets at ranges of 150–200 kilometers (km). THAAD covers the BMD middle tier and defends a larger area than the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System. It complements the Patriot, the Navy’s AEGIS Missile Defense System, and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System.

A THAAD battery consists of 90 soldiers, six truck mounted launchers, 48 interceptors (eight per launcher), one Army/Navy Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control Mode 2 (AN/TPY-2) radar, and a Tactical Fire Control/Communications component. THAAD provides Combatant Commanders a rapidly deployable capability against short-range (up to 1,000 km), medium-range (1,000–3,000 km), 

and limited intermediate-range (3,000–5,000 km) ballistic missile threats inside or outside the atmosphere during their final (terminal) phase of flight. THAAD was developed by Lockheed Martin Corporation, headquartered in Bethesda, MD, and is being manufactured in Troy, AL. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is responsible for the development of THAAD. According to the MDA,

“MDA is responsible for the sustainment of the THAAD missile defense unique and development items, while the U.S. Army is responsible for the operations and sustainment of the common items. MDA funding provides sustainment for all fielded THAAD batteries, ensures THAAD assets are properly maintained and crews are trained to meet Combatant Commanders’ needs.”

The Army provides soldiers for THAAD units. As such, the ability to field and operate THAAD batteries can be affected by recruiting and retention shortages, as well as the availability of qualified critical technical military occupational specialties.

Frontline Fusion: The Network Architecture Needed to Counter Drones


A squad of infantry dismounts their infantry squad vehicle and begins moving toward the objective. As the soldiers approaches their assault position, an alert pings throughout the squad’s command-and-control team awareness kit devices: “HOSTILE GRP 2 DRONE DETECTED, 1.7km, 045°, TRACK-ID 2112.” The drone’s location populates as a red dot on the map, along with its ID, and the text message drops from the screen. The drone was detected by an acoustic sensor from a forward multifunctional reconnaissance company and a small panel radar mounted on an infantry squad vehicle from an adjacent platoon. Although the sensors are distributed among separate echelons, 

the drone tracks from each sensor are fused into a single track and populated on the squad’s team awareness kit devices. The battalion headquarters sees the same threat and directs its multipurpose company to launch a first-person-view drone with the task of destroying Track 2112. Within seconds, the friendly drone is launched, and the hostile drone is destroyed. As the infantry squad approaches the assault position, the hostile track drops off the map, and a text alert—“Track 2112 destroyed”—is sent throughout the squad.

This is the power of deliberately architected networks and sensor fusion: fast, efficient, shared awareness. One track, one threat, one decision, one common operational picture. As drones proliferate across every theater, this kind of seamless, fused detection will define the difference between successful operations and losses of combat power.

Understanding sensor fusion and network architecture isn’t optional to solve the C-UAS (counter–unmanned aircraft system) problem—it’s the entry fee to the professional conversation. To repurpose a well-known aphorism, amateurs will highlight the newest kit on the market, while professionals will discuss network integration and sensor fusion.

There are two critical tasks the Department of Defense must accomplish to solve its current C-UAS challenges: first, prescribing a common command-and-control (C2) system for all services, and second, implementing a network architecture to share sensor and effector data from the tactical to the strategic levels. Science and technology bureaucrats beware: The good old days of implementing bespoke systems on hub-and-spoke networks are ending, as leaders become more aware of our archaic and siloed air defense architectures.

The Real Meaning of Putin’s Middle East Failure


Just a few years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed to have reasserted Moscow’s influence in the Middle East after decades in which it had waned. As Putin deepened ties with long-standing Russian allies Iran and Syria while nurturing more cordial relationships with Israel and the Arab monarchies, his pragmatic realism seemed to represent a more comfortable alternative to what many countries in the region perceived as the United States’ naive and destabilizing commitment to promoting democracy.

This strategy allowed Russia to become an important counterweight to the United States in the region, but it also paid dividends closer to home. Leaders in the Middle East were notably quiet in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Not even Israel, a close U.S. ally, criticized Russia, let alone took part in sanctioning it.

But over the past 20 months, Russia’s standing in the Middle East has cratered. Israel’s response to Hamas’s October 7 attacks has devastated the so-called axis of resistance, the Iranian-backed network with which Russia had forged close ties. The Assad regime in Syria, long a valuable Russian client, collapsed spectacularly. U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities severely weakened Russia’s most important regional ally. As a result, Russia’s reputation as a patron and guarantor of security in the region lies in tatters. In the new Middle East now taking shape, Moscow is no longer needed.

Moscow’s failures will resound beyond the Middle East. Whether the result of Putin’s conscious decision not to intervene or of the Kremlin’s inability to do so, Russia’s abandonment of partners in the region should be a sobering lesson for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party: that in times of crisis, Russia will not be a reliable ally.

How the Pentagon plays into Trump’s sprawling artificial intelligence ‘Action Plan’

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr

An 149th Intelligence Squadron airman conducts training in a computer training lab at Mather Field, California Dec. 2, 2023. The December 2023 UTA focus was on the readiness of the airmen by embracing their unit’s stated mission to “Organize, train, and equip Cyber-ISR leaders to provide intelligence in support of federal and state mission priorities​.WASHINGTON — “The United States is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence,” begins the introduction to America’s AI Action Plan, released this morning by the White House. The prime adversary in that race, other passages make clear, is China.

Overall, the Action Plan unambiguously frames AI as a winner-take-all competition between great powers.Whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits,” the introduction continues. “Just like we won the space race, it is imperative that the United States and its allies win this race.”While most of the specific items in the Action Plan relate to domestic R&D, the economy, or international trade, it also includes a long to-do list for the Department of Defense. Of about 19 “recommended policy actions” explicitly citing DoD (the “Action Plan” is not an Executive Order and only “recommends” actions rather than directing them), five relate to the Department’s own internal workings. The others all give the Pentagon a prominent or even leading role in setting standards and coordinating efforts across the executive branch.

Particularly interesting is a call for DARPA, the Pentagon’s dedicated unit for high-risk, high-payoff R&D, to lead an interagency “technology development program” to address a fundamental problem with cutting-edge AI: Even the people who build it don’t really know how it works.That’s particularly true for generative AIs such as Large Language Models, which can summarize masses of data and even generate surprising insights but also frequently “hallucinate” and output falsehoods in unpredictable ways.
Technologists know how LLMs work at a high level, but often cannot explain why a model produced a specific output,” the Action Plan notes. “This lack of predictability … can make it challenging to use advanced AI in defense, national security, or other applications where lives are at stake.” (Arguably, it makes GenAI a tricky tool to trust even when the stakes are lower, as a recent Marine Corps field manual warns).

The Trump Effect In Japan – Analysis

Ambassador Gurjit Singh

The ruling coalition in Japan, comprising the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its junior partner, Komeito, suffered a political setback in the Upper House elections on July 20, reducing it to a minority status.[1] This follows its earlier disappointing performance in the October 2024 Lower House elections,[2] which had already cost it a majority.[3] As it stands, the coalition now finds itself in the minority, in both chambers of the National Diet, a rare and politically precarious position that may foreshadow deeper shifts in Japan’s political landscape.

Of the 125 Upper House seats contested, 124 were regular seats, while one was a by-election. The electoral system gives voters two votes: one for a candidate in their local constituency and another for a political party through proportional representation. Fifty seats were filled via proportional representation, with the remaining 75 chosen by a direct constituency vote.[4]

Prior to the election, the LDP-Komeito coalition held 75 uncontested seats. Their target was modest: secure at least 50 seats out of the 125 up for grabs, enough to maintain a slim majority. However, the results fell short. The coalition won only 47 seats, three fewer than needed, for a majority. The LDP, under Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, lost 13 seats, while Komeito dropped six. Meanwhile, 

the opposition bloc made substantial gains, securing a total of 78 seats. Much of the disillusionment with the ruling coalition centres around economic frustrations. Inflation, long dormant in Japan, has resurfaced, now hovering above 3%. The cost of basic necessities such as rice has doubled in the past year, and a consumption tax of 10% continues to weigh heavily on consumers. Wages, by contrast, have remained stagnant, leaving many Japanese citizens struggling to maintain their standard of living.

This economic squeeze has particularly affected young voters and families, prompting questions about the government’s ability to manage the economy. Amidst rising living costs and growing inequality, the LDP’s campaign promises appeared out of touch with the daily realities of many voters.

Israel is breaking the Middle EastThe Arab state system must be preserved

Thanassis Cambanis

For a generation, the Middle East has been a byword for state failure. A series of cataclysms buffeted Arab states in this period, weakening institutions, security, and regional governance. The turmoil began with the US invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, which plunged that country into chaos. Then came the Arab Spring, ISIS and its conquest of a swath of Mesopotamia and the Levant, the dissolution of Syria and Libya, serial dysfunction in Lebanon, and the Saudi war in Yemen, among other troubles.

Yet despite ongoing conflict and instability, the Arab state system has made a hard-earned comeback in recent years. Iraq has crafted the foundations of a functional state. In fits and starts, the monarchies in the Persian Gulf region have fashioned modern bureaucracies and a measure of mutual security cooperation. Autocrats spurned popular demands for democracy and good governance. But the same Arab regimes succeeded at rebuilding state capacity — a necessary if insufficient ingredient of regional stability.

Now, however, that glimmer of possibility has come under threat from Israel’s spiraling, maximalist regional war. With a mostly blank check from Washington, the Jewish state has challenged the viability of states across the region, threatening to undermine the Middle East’s only recently rebounding, fragile state order. The Trump administration gets the importance of stable states, but its response is limited to off-the-record or background seething. “Bibi acted like a madman,” a White House official told Axios this week. “He bombs everything all the time. This could undermine what Trump is trying to do.”

Those remarks concerned Israel’s intervention in Syria, ostensibly carried out to protect the country’s Druze minority. The US government has its own concerns about whether Syria’s new leader can control his security forces or protect minorities. But Washington does not support Israel’s approach of bombing government targets, occupying Syrian territory, and arming proxies, supposedly under the guise of a humanitarian mission.

How to Negotiate with Moscow Based on Experience of a Ukrainian Diplomat

Roman Bezsmertny

We are publishing this piece because Roman Bezsmertny is a Ukrainian diplomat who participated in nearly 60 rounds of talks with Russian representatives during the Minsk peace process. His experience and advice offer unique insight into Moscow’s negotiating tactics. This holds immediate implications for the ongoing efforts by Ukraine and its partners in bringing Moscow, despite its regular delays and intensified attacks on the Ukrainian population, to the negotiating table to achieve a meaningful and lasting peace agreement.

Bezsmertny is a former deputy prime minister, ambassador, election strategist, historian of Soviet ideology and modern diplomacy, and a co-author of the Constitution of Ukraine. He participated in the Minsk negotiations with Russia, survived the Russian invasion in his native village of Motyzhyn near Kyiv, and now runs a growing YouTube platform as an independent analyst and educator.

Executive Summary:Moscow views negotiations as a strategic tool in its arsenal of war to delay, deceive, and destabilize its opponents.Russia enters any future negotiations from a position of weakness as its military failures, economic strain, and international isolation leave it with no credible leverage or path to lasting gains.Meaningful negotiation with Russia requires pressure, preparedness, consistency, accountability checking in real time, and speed to define the outcomes of the talks before the Kremlin dominates the public narrative.

On July 8, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reaffirmed his country’s readiness to host the third round of talks between Ukraine and Russia. Turkish media reports that Fidan is awaiting Ukraine’s response (Shafaq News, July 8). The previous two rounds of negotiations on May 16 and June 2, facilitated by the United States, achieved some progress, including prisoner exchanges. The talks, however, did not achieve their stated goal to establish a ceasefire and move to trilateral talks to reach a just and lasting peace (see EDM, May 19 [1] [2], June 2, 5, July 7; The Kyiv Independent, July 1).

How Long Will Americans Tolerate Ukrainian Corruption? | Opinion

Steve Cortes

Interventionist politicians like Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden constantly positioned U.S. support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "fight for democracy" against autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Recent actions suggest that Zelensky and his effective co-president, Andriy Yermak, act in very authoritarian ways themselves—and increasingly reveal to the world that they are not transparent, reliable partners for the United States.

Corruption remains entrenched in Ukrainian politics and governance, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Just this week, the office charged with fighting and prosecuting corruption was raided in an extra-judicial attack on decency and due process. This raid reeks—and it smells like gangsterism, not democracy.

Given these tactics, it is no wonder that Americans increasingly realize that sending $175 billion of borrowed money to corrupt leaders in Ukraine is just not sound policy. In fact, sending mountains of borrowed funds to kleptocrats actually harms America's national security, all while making our country poorer.

Perhaps for these reasons, Americans now display a new preference for disengagement from the Ukraine-Russia war. A 62 percent majority of Americans now say that America should disengage from the war if the two parties cannot find a peaceful resolution, now that President Donald Trump has made good on his promise to demand direct talks between the governments of Zelensky and Putin. Even among Democrats, 45 percent support such disengagement. Among young Americans aged 25-44, a stunning 69 percent favor disengagement.

Those numbers have risen dramatically for two primary reasons. First, the war has reached a seeming stalemate, compelling a negotiated solution rather than massive new American spending. Second, U.S. citizens are becoming more aware of the disreputable actions of the officials receiving the aid.

Behind the Zhong Sheng pseudonym: Understanding China’s official diplomatic voice


For understanding China’s stance and intentions on foreign affairs, few sources offer clearer insight than the Zhong Sheng commentaries published in the official People’s Daily newspaper. These occasional editorials – the pseudonym “Zhong Sheng” meaning Voice of China – represent the authoritative view of the Chinese Communist Party, not that of an independent individual but by the Party-state apparatus specifically to signal official positions.

The 2025 commentaries so far reveal a sophisticated messaging strategy that is a combination of reassurance with assertiveness, aimed simultaneously at bolstering domestic legitimacy and global influence. With most commentaries aimed at the United States, they provide insights into the Chinese perspective of bilateral relations.

Early in the year, the tone was notably defensive, primarily responding to US actions, particularly the imposition of unilateral tariffs and protectionist measures. These editorials emphasised China’s resilience and right to retaliate, painting US actions as self-defeating and destabilising to the global economy.

By the middle of this year, however, a rhetorical shift had emerged. Commentaries surrounding economic talks held in Geneva and London began emphasising the establishment of consultation mechanisms, substantive tariff rollbacks, and pragmatic cooperation frameworks. This evolution reflects Beijing’s assessment that US pressure tactics were failing to produce leverage, hinting at growing confidence in China’s ability to engage the United States on equal terms.

China positioning itself as a defender of the global economic order is a consistent theme in the editorials.The ideological foundation of these editorials rests on two fundamental principles: mutual benefit and equality. The term “win-win cooperation” appears repeatedly as the essential framework through which China insists a relationship must operate. The editorials reinforce the idea that both China and the United States stand to gain only through interdependence.

Both targets of Trump’s tariffs, the EU and China still can’t get along

Simone McCarthy

Hong KongCNN —As the two biggest economic targets in Donald Trump’s trade war, some analysts thought the European Union and China could move closer together and stake out common ground.But a summit between the two sides in Beijing on Thursday is instead expected to showcase the deep-seated frictions and mistrust that are widening a rift between the two heavyweights.

European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are set to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping and hold summit talks with Chinese Premier Li Qiang in Beijing.The meeting comes as both countries have faced heightened tariffs on their exports to the US – with uncertainties in US trade relations driving Beijing to look to tighten ties with the EU and other major economies.

But a list of grievances between the two sides are setting that goal out of reach.The EU was far from shy about its concerns in the lead up to the summit. Officials in recent weeks have reiterated their long-standing concerns over what they say are inexpensive Chinese goods “flooding” European markets, raised alarms about Beijing’s move to squeeze the rare earths supply chain, and decried its ongoing backing for Russia as it wages war in Ukraine.

Beijing has lashed out against those concerns, including the 27-member bloc’s move last year to raise tariffs on its electric vehicles, launching a range of its own trade probes in apparent retaliation.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shakes hands with Chinese leader Xi Jinping after holding a trilateral meeting including French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in May, 2024. Christian Liewig/Corbis/Getty Images


Over 20,000 foreign cyberattacks thwarted during 12-day war, Iran ICT minister says


Speaking at an open session of Parliament on Tuesday, Sattar Hashemi said coordinated efforts by the Ministry helped contain the damage and ensure the continued operation of vital digital services across the country.

“This was one of the most complex hybrid attacks we’ve faced, yet thanks to timely management and inter-agency coordination, the disruptions were minimized,” Hashemi told lawmakers.Presenting a detailed report on communication security and digital infrastructure during the conflict with the Zionist regime, the ICT minister outlined steps taken to strengthen the National Information Network and support Iran’s digital economy throughout the crisis.

Hashemi noted that the Ministry’s top priority during the conflict was to ensure the stability of communications and uninterrupted access to digital services for citizens, businesses, and essential sectors.“Our strategy was designed to protect psychological security and preserve public calm during critical times,” he explained.

He said the Ministry coordinated closely with other government agencies to maintain continuity in key sectors such as digital payments, retail logistics, fuel distribution, healthcare, and telecommunications. A dedicated task force was established to manage daily operations and troubleshoot disruptions.

Highlighting the broader impact of the war, Hashemi said nearly 10 million Iranians rely directly or indirectly on the digital economy for their livelihood. He revealed that the conflict caused a 30 percent drop in employment within the sector and significant financial losses. However, he praised the resilience of both the business community and the general public.

In conclusion, Hashemi reaffirmed the Ministry’s commitment to protecting the digital ecosystem and providing essential services. “Our efforts were aimed at safeguarding psychological security and ensuring the continuity of the digital economy. To that end, we also offered free services to ease the burden on citizens during this difficult period.”

AI arms race: US and China weaponize drones, code and biotech for the next great war

Morgan Phillips 

AI investor Arnie Bellini predicted that future battles will be fought by robots, and that the U.S.’s cyber and AI capabilities might be able to prevent a war with China before it starts.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!From drone swarms to gene-edited soldiers, the United States and China are racing to integrate artificial intelligence into nearly every facet of their war machines — and a potential conflict over Taiwan may be the world’s first real test of who holds the technological edge.

For millennia, victory in war was determined by manpower, firepower and the grit of battlefield commanders. However, in this ongoing technological revolution, algorithms and autonomy may matter more than conventional arms."War will come down to who has the best AI," said Arnie Bellini, a tech entrepreneur and defense investor, in an interview with Fox News Digital.

U.S. planners now consider Taiwan the likely locus of a 21st-century great power conflict. Though America doesn’t formally ally with Taiwan, it has steadily armed the island and shifted its forces to focus on the Indo-Pacific.Taiwanese conscripts look on during a visit by Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te to a military base in Taichung on June 28, 2024. (SAM YEH/AFP via Getty Images)

The Pentagon is responding with urgency, and nowhere is that transformation more visible than in the U.S. Army's sweeping AI overhaul.
The Army goes all-in: $36 billion AI investmentUnder Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's leadership, the Army has launched a $36 billion modernization initiative aimed directly at countering China in the Indo-Pacific.

By 2026, each of its 10 active combat divisions will be equipped with roughly 1,000 drones, dramatically shifting the battlefield from crewed helicopters to autonomous systems.Army leaders highlight that legacy weapons and bureaucratic lag are incompatible with future warfare. The new push includes AI-assisted command-and-control, real-world testing under challenging conditions in places like the Philippines and a rapid feedback model to keep doctrine updated.

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change


A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases.But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult.The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.

It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.Dorka BauerGovernments and climate campaigners went to the Hague on Wednesday to hear the court's opinion

The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019.One of those students, Siosiua Veikune from Tonga, was in the Hague to hear the decision."I'm lost for words. This is so exciting. There's a ton of emotions rushing through us. This is a win we take proudly back home to our communities," he told BBC News.

"Tonight I'll sleep easier. The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through - our suffering, our resilience and our right to our future," said Flora Vano, from the Pacific Island Vanuatu, which is considered the country most vulnerable to extreme weather globally."This is a victory not just for us but for every frontline community fighting to be heard."

The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week, including in national courts outside of the ICJ.Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.

The America First approach to trade and tariffs is only getting started


Donald Trump has declared in sending tariff letters to his counterparts across the world “You will never be disappointed with The United States of America”. Unfortunately, for US trading partners, they almost certainly will be.Any hopes that the “reciprocal” tariffs initially revealed on 2 April would be the end of Trump’s America First trade policy are misplaced. A series of legal challenges could slow down his tariffs push, with currently two cases expected to be decided by the US Supreme Court. But Trump has other legal mechanisms for implementing tariffs.

Typically, control of commerce rests with the US Congress, not the President. A ruling against reciprocal tariffs, which Trump has justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, would be a setback. Whether Trump obeys such a ruling is another question. And either way, the Commerce Department, under direction from the President, can undertake investigations which Trump can then use to justify the imposition of tariffs. What are termed Section 232 investigations under the Trade Expansion Act are used to determine whether imports in certain sectors pose a national security threat. These investigations present recommendations and empower the President to act without Congressional approval.

It was this authority that allowed Trump to impose steel and aluminium tariffs in his first term. He used the same mechanism to re-introduce them in his second term, and further increase them to 50 per cent. He also imposed new 25 per cent automotive tariffs.Even if agreements are reached, they will almost certainly be shallow and weak on enforcement measures.

Seven of these Section 232 investigations have been initiated since March. The sectors targeted are timber and lumber, copper, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and commercial aircraft and jet engines. Trump has now threatened copper and pharmaceutical tariffs, demonstrating that he is ready to use this authority.

Maximizing the Effectiveness of DoD and IC Chief Technology Officers

William McHenry

In the global arena of the 21st century, national security is inextricably linked to technological superiority. The nation that can develop, adopt, and integrate cutting-edge technology faster and more effectively than its adversaries will hold the decisive edge. To this end, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC) have established roles of the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) across the Services, Agencies and Activities. These positions are intended to be the North Star for technology strategy, guiding behemoth organizations through the turbulent waters of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, 

and cyber warfare. Yet, for all their potential, the current structure renders many of these CTOs as senior advisors, esteemed voices in the wilderness whose counsel is often heard but rarely, if ever, mandatory. This advisory model is a fundamental flaw, creating a chasm between technological vision and mission execution. To truly harness the power of innovation and ensure America’s continued strategic advantage, the role of the DoD and IC CTO must be radically reimagined: they must be transformed from advisors into architects, with direct-line reporting to mission leaders and explicit sign-off authority on all technology acquisitions.

The current paradigm for most government CTOs, particularly within the vast ecosystems of the DoD and IC, is one of influence without authority. The CTO is typically a senior executive tasked with "horizon scanning" for emerging technologies, fostering a culture of innovation, and providing strategic advice to senior leadership. They chair councils, publish strategy documents, and champion pilot programs. While these activities are valuable, they exist largely outside the core machinery of power and funding.

The fundamental disconnect lies in the separation of the CTO from the two things that drive any bureaucracy: budget and authority. A service branch CTO might identify a revolutionary new data analytics platform. They can write white papers, give compelling presentations, and even run a successful pilot. However, when it comes to enterprise-wide procurement and implementation, the decision-making power rests with Program Executive Officers (PEOs), contracting officials, and financial managers whose primary incentives are often tied to executing existing programs of record, managing risk, and staying within tightly constrained annual budgets. The CTO’s strategic advice is just one input among many and is easily overridden by programmatic inertia, parochial service interests, or short-term financial considerations.

This structure creates a phenomenon known as "innovation theater." The organization appears to be embracing the future, but the core processes that dictate what technology is actually bought and deployed remain unchanged. The result is a landscape littered with redundant systems, a "valley of death" where promising prototypes fail to transition to operational capabilities, and a persistent struggle to achieve true interoperability.
The Commercial Contrast: Where the CTO Drives the Business

To understand how ineffective the government model is, one need only look at its commercial counterpart. In successful technology-driven companies like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft, the CTO is not a peripheral advisor. They are a central pillar of the executive leadership team, often reporting directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The commercial CTO's role is not merely to suggest technology but to deliver it.

COVID-19 Made Our Brains Age Faster

Alice Park

COVID-19 is leaving all kinds of legacies on our health, both on our bodies and our brains. In a study published July 22 in Nature Communications, researchers report that living through the pandemic aged our brains—whether or not you were infected with COVID-19.

To investigate COVID-19's impact on the brain, researchers looked at brain scans from 1,000 people during and before the pandemic. They compared these to brain scans from other people taken during "normal" times as a model for typical brain aging.

Led by Ali-Reza Mohammadi-Nejad from the University of Nottingham School of Medicine in the U.K., the researchers looked at measures like brain function, gray and white matter volume, a person's cognitive skills, and their chronological age. Gray matter is critical for memory, emotions, and movement, while white matter is essential for helping nerves transmit electrical signals.

The pandemic-era brains aged about 5.5 months faster compared to the brains of those studied before the pandemic. The accelerated aging was documented in people who had COVID-19 infections as well as those who didn’t, which strongly suggests that pandemic-related factors other than biological or virus-driven ones—like high stress—were also at work. In fact, the changes in gray and white matter were similar in people who were and were not infected.

“This finding was interesting and rather unexpected,” says Mohammadi-Nejad. Other studies have already shown that the COVID-19 virus can change the brain for the worse, but "we found that participants who simply lived through the pandemic period, regardless of infection, also showed signs of slightly accelerated brain aging. This highlights that the broader experience of the pandemic—including disruptions to daily life, stress, reduced social interactions, reduced activity, etc.,—may have had a measurable impact on brain health.”