Grievance and Flawed Governance in Iran’s Baluchestan

Source Link

What’s new? As Iran struggles with geopolitical tensions and economic duress, its periphery regions are facing additional challenges. Baluchestan, the southern part of Sistan and Baluchestan province, has experienced recurrent unrest. Many residents feel the government discriminates against them as a religious and ethnic minority. Militancy persists. Environmental concerns compound the difficulties.

Why does it matter? The central government’s repeated pledges to reduce poverty in Baluchestan through development and improved governance have been undermined by chronic mismanagement, lack of investment and suppression of dissent. Deepening socio-economic disparities, threats of militancy and growing environmental challenges are likely to bring greater strains.

What should be done? Enhancing popular participation in local governance, making economic reforms and improving environmental stewardship are the best ways to address Baluchestan’s entrenched crisis. But meaningful progress will require considerable support from the central government, notwithstanding the other huge challenges it faces at home and abroad.

Executive Summary

Even as it recovers from its twelve-day war with Israel, faces increasing U.S. pressure and contemplates the prospect of renewed UN sanctions, Iran is struggling with domestic challenges that cry out for Tehran’s attention. Among these are the grievances of the Baluch residents of the volatile Baluchestan region. Baluchestan covers most of the south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan. Two thirds of its inhabitants are Baluch – a primarily Sunni group that is ethnically and religiously distinct from Iran’s Persian Shiite majority. The region has seen years of underdevelopment, socio-political exclusion, repression and environmental degradation. It has also seen violence, including on 30 September 2022 – known among Baluch as “bloody Friday” – when state forces killed over 100 protesters. Though unrest has waned, its drivers remain unaddressed, providing grist for separatist groups, one of which provoked a clash with neighbouring Pakistan in 2024. Efforts to advance economic development and political inclusion – and to tackle environmental problems – can help put Baluchestan on a more stable footing.

America’s policy of ‘containing’ China is on the brink

Gabriel Elefteriu

Sourec Link

The scenario that Brussels Signal warned about half a year ago in this very column seems to be coming to pass, with Pentagon leaks suggesting that an epochal shift in American global posture is upon us. The rumour is that the upcoming US National Defence Strategy, due shortly, will prioritise the US “homeland” and the western hemisphere (the Americas) over countering China, let alone Russia.

Such a decision would be so momentous in its implications and so shocking in its advent – going, as it would, squarely against the core Indo-Pacific focus of US strategy over the past decade – that the US and Western foreign policy community still exudes an overwhelming sense of incredulity at the prospect.

Bewilderment is amplified by a perception of intellectual betrayal. The main author of the document, Undersecretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, made his name as a China hawk specifically advocating a stronger, not weaker, US military posture in the Pacific. His widely-read 2021 book, The Strategy of Denial, is wholly concerned with denying China regional hegemony as a matter of the highest priority in US defence strategy. Admittedly, the book came out before China’s giant manufacturing capacity got firmly coupled to Russia’s vast raw materials after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the West’s response. Still, how could he now work towards a policy that is almost the complete reversal of what he always stood for?

As the rumoured strategy is not out yet, many still hope that there may yet be time for course-correction. And it is also not beyond imagining, given some of the unorthodox ways of handling political issues that this Administration has so far evinced, that this entire affair is part of US diplomatic signalling in Trump’s negotiations with China, rather than an actual strategic pivot.

For some reason, international opinion has not yet fully realised that the main priority for this second Trump Administration is trade policy – and specifically the settlement of US-China trade relations – rather than security or even foreign policy as a whole. Unlike most, or all, previous White House regimes, in the Trump 2.0 era it is the principals holding the top economic briefs who are they key players in the president’s entourage and who are shaping the direction of US global strategy the most.

Xi Jinping in Lhasa: Spectacular Delusions

Gabriel Lafitte

Source Link

The spectacular party-state has a frontier construction theory that classifies Tibet as a national security risk, because Tibet is full of Tibetans, for whom the Party’s interest do not come first. Partly this is because party-speak makes no sense. Then you discover “promote the construction of the Chinese nation’s community” means abandoning one’s mother tongue, opting instead to believe not only are you really racially Chinese, so too were all your deluded ancestors. Xi Jinping flies to Lhasa to inspect his campaign to rectify the minds of the Tibetans. On cue the assembled Tibetans duly perform in song and dance their enthusiasm for discovering they are actually Chinese, embracing Chinese characteristics smothered on everything Tibetan, declaiming their love for the core leader because the Party’s interests always come first. Can we believe what we see? Does Xi Jinping believe his own propaganda? Can performative declamation of slogans actually change minds?

Webinar Report: Climate Crisis in Tibet-IV: China’s Militarization of Tibet: Strategic Ambitions and Ecological Fallout

Shinji Yamaguchi, Srikanth Kondapalli, Zuzana Koskova and Jagannath Panda

Source Link

The Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs (SCSA-IPA) of the ISDP organized a webinar titled “China’s Militarization of Tibet: Strategic Ambitions and Ecological Fallout,” which was the fourth in a webinar series on the Climate Crisis in Tibet. It was held on July 23, 2025. The webinar focused on how China is actively pursuing a revisionist agenda to secure dominance in the Himalayas. Extensive infrastructure projects in the region, including roads, dams, and military installations, serve the “dual purpose” of military enhancement and creating economic dependencies. Also known to the world as the “Third Pole”, Tibet seems to be facing the brunt of militarization at China’s hands with profound environmental consequences.

Beijing’s strategic emphasis on the Himalayan region demands a strong and resilient infrastructure capable of supporting sustained military operations in extremely challenging terrain. In recent years, troop mobilization and upgradation of military infrastructure have been carried out in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). The Western Theatre Command has been quite active in enhancing its military facilities and operational strategies. Additionally, the Chinese government seems eager to push different types of infrastructural projects in Tibet, including the biggest hydro dam and even the fastest railway line in Tibet. All of these come at a grave cost, as Tibet is home to some of the rarest natural reserves. Environmental concerns are routinely sidelined, causing growing unrest among local communities.

Creating ‘Facts on the Mountains’: China’s Gray Zone Playbook in the Himalayas

Shinji Yamaguchi

Source Link

China’s policy in the Himalayas represents a calculated and systematic application of the gray zone strategy previously honed in its maritime territorial disputes. Rather than relying solely on direct military action, Beijing employs a military-civil fusion model to reshape the strategic landscape along the border. Central to this effort is an aggressive infrastructure push—building roads, railways, airfields, and strategically placed border villages—that alters the region’s logistical and demographic realities. These developments serve to establish de facto control without crossing the threshold of open conflict, gradually shifting the status quo in China’s favor. This strategy challenges India’s long-standing geographic and temporal advantages by imposing a slow, persistent pressure across the frontier. This issue brief examines the core elements of China’s Himalayan strategy and its implications, highlighting how Beijing’s calculated actions are redefining the security dynamics of the region through means that remain just below the level of conventional warfare.

Ukraine Declares War on Russia’s Oil Industry

Reuben Johnson

Source Link

Key Points and Summary – Ukraine’s latest long-range drone strike on Russia’s Kirishi refinery underscores Kyiv’s strategy to choke the oil revenues and fuels that sustain Moscow’s war.

-The attack, nearly 500 miles from Ukraine, reportedly shut a key processing unit handling about 40% of Kirishi’s output, highlighting growing reach and precision.

-It followed a strike on Primorsk, Russia’s largest Baltic oil port, and joins dozens of refinery hits that have forced shutdowns, rationing, and gas lines.

-Kyiv argues refineries are legitimate military targets; Moscow calls them civilian. As repairs drag on, Russia’s battlefield tempo and budget feel pressure from fires far behind the front.

Ukraine’s Drones Just Hit a Giant Russian Refinery—Here’s Why It Matters

WARSAW, POLAND – Last month, a director in the Polish defense industry shared with me a simple equation to understand Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“As long as Russian President Vladimir Putin is able to extract and sell oil, or refine it and sell the petrol produced, this war is never going to end,” he said. “Whether or not life for people in Russia is difficult – and even if it becomes worse than it already is – no one is going to be bothered. It all comes down to Russia’s ability to maintain its oil industry.”

It is, in fact, specifically that industry that Ukraine’s military is trying to degrade and disrupt, one drone attack at a time.

On the night of Sept. 14, Ukrainian drones attacked the Kirishi oil refinery in Russia’s St. Petersburg region. The Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff confirmed the successful strike.

The Kirishi refinery is one of the largest facilities of its kind in Russia, with an overall processing capacity of more than 17 million tons of oil per year. Russia’s air defense forces intercepted three drones in the area of the facility, according to Leningrad Oblast Gov. Alexander Drozdenko.

The AfD’s Western Breakthrough: How Germany’s Establishment Lost Control

Sabine Beppler-Spahl

Source Link

Danny Kruger’s defection to Reform UK shows Nigel Farage’s party is now the Right’s real home—and the Conservatives’ days are numbered.

Help, Wokeism Is Back on Stage at the Gaîté Lyrique!

The Parisian theatre occupied by migrants reopens its doors... to celebrate migration.

The Dialogue Died with Charlie Kirk

If there is one takeaway from this assassination, it is that conservatives must get up from their armchairs and stop being nice. You cannot talk to those who hate you.

Whenever Germans head to the polls, one question dominates all debate: How strong will the populist AfD become this time? Last Sunday’s district and mayoral elections in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW)—Germany’s most populous state—provided a stark answer.

While Germany’s state broadcaster spoke of a “sigh of relief” when the ruling CDU emerged victorious with 33.3% of votes, keeping the AfD in third place at 14.5%, this narrative of triumph masks a far more troubling reality for Germany’s political elite.

Minister President Henrik Wüst, despite his CDU’s electoral win, admitted he could no longer “sleep peacefully” given the AfD’s result. His anxiety is well-founded. Though his party technically won, the CDU achieved its worst post-war result in the state. Meanwhile, the traditionally dominant SPD collapsed to a mere 22.1%—also its worst performance ever, following an already disastrous showing five years prior.

The AfD, by contrast, nearly tripled its 2020 result under circumstances that would have crippled any other party.

Fighting with One Hand Tied

I spent five days observing a joint military exercise between Australia and the Philippines. Here’s what I learned.

Danielle Ireland-Piper

Source Link

The 11th principle of war is personality, muses Brigadier Dean Thompson as we talk at an airbase in the Philippines. Relationships matter.

Australia’s relationship with the Philippines has reached a new level of convergence, coming at a time of tensions over territorial disputes in the South China Sea and unease in the region flowing from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This August saw the second iteration of Exercise ALON, a joint military exercise between Australia and the Philippines. Notably, the exercise takes part only in uncontested areas of the South China Sea.

If conflict broke out, this is just part of what Australia would have to do to defend itself and the region

I was invited by Joint Operations Command to an academic embed program in the Philippines to learn about the exercise. The inclusion of academics who teach, research and publish in this field is an invaluable way of connecting with the public.

The first Exercise ALON between Australia and the Philippines in 2023 was amphibious: Alon means “wave” in Tagalog. This time around, however, it was a joint operation and multi-service exercise involving army, navy and air force across the five domains (water, land, air, space, and cyber), as well as roles for observer nations such as Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand, and the United States. The exercise also required one of the largest airlifts of Australian forces in the Indo-Pacific region since 1999 to Timor-Leste. This meant moving the troops on more than 27 flights using just six C-17 military transport aircraft. If conflict broke out, this is just part of what Australia would have to do to defend itself and the region. It’s an extraordinary feat of logistics and one worth practising.

Operationally, the exercise was about joint force projection and freedom of manoeuvre. The Philippines has a much higher population density than Australia and the heat and humidity is challenging. It’s one thing to practise operations at home; quite another to make it work extraterritorially, and remain in accordance with international law, Australian law, and the law of the Philippines: everything from constitutional requirements and mariners’ notices to compliance with workplace health and safety and the storage of explosives.

US think tanks are the world's least transparent

Nick Cleveland-Stout

Source Link

According to a new survey, North American think tanks are tied as the least transparent of any region. The poll, conducted by On Think Tanks, surveyed 335 think tanks from over 100 countries. The accompanying report, released today, found that only 35% of North American think tanks (mostly from the U.S.) that responded to the survey disclose funding sources. By comparison, 67% of Asian think tanks and 58% of African think tanks disclose their funding sources.

And there are signs that think tank funding transparency is trending towards more opacity. Just last month, the Center for American Progress — a major center-left think tank with $46 million in annual revenue — announced that it would no longer disclose its donors. The think tank said it was taking this “temporary protective step” out of concern that the Trump administration could target them.

In response to conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s murder, both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have suggested the White House will target left-wing groups and their donors.

Mark Schmitt, the Director of the Political Reform program at New America, suggests that think tanks should learn a lesson from other organizations that have drawn the ire of the Trump administration. “There’s no advantage or safety in bargaining with this administration or conceding wrongdoing where none exists,” he said.

Fear of political retribution is not the only reason U.S. think tanks may be reluctant to share financial information. Even before these new threats against left-leaning groups, a Quincy Institute report found that over a third of the major foreign policy think tanks do not disclose any donor information, oftentimes because of their heavy reliance on special interests. The top 50 American think tanks received at least $110 million from foreign governments and $35 million from defense contractors in the past 5 years alone.

Trump's Cancelled QUAD Visit

Hamza Zaman & Muhammad Salman Tariq

Source Link

U.S. President Donald Trump canceled his visit to India to attend the QUAD Summit amidst the ongoing tensions between the two countries, exacerbated by President Trump's heightened tariffs on Indian imports to a massive 50%. Despite previous warnings issued by the Trump administration, New Delhi consistently disregarded U.S. demands, widening the friction between the two nations. The relationship was further strained by Prime Minister Modi’s visit to China after 7 years to attend the 2-day SCO summit. The Trump administration perceives this visit as India’s attempt at rapprochement with China and seeking an alternative to the U.S., thus further aggravating the mistrust.

President Trump repeatedly denounced India as facilitating the Russian offensive in Ukraine by procuring cheap Russian oil. Despite his continuous warning, India refrained from suspending the purchase of Russian oil, resulting in the enforcement of 50% tariffs. President Trump views India’s defiance as an obstacle to his plan on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, possibly foreseeing a Nobel Prize as the great peacemaker. However, Trump’s futile efforts at concluding the war exacerbate Trump’s frustration with India, as India’s lack of cooperation hampers Trump’s aspiration to conclude the war.

The Trump administration expected India’s cooperation by acceding to his demands, as the U.S. has been the largest economic and strategic partner of India. Despite the decades-long strategic partnership, the Trump administration failed to accrue India’s diplomatic and strategic assistance over the Ukraine War. On the contrary, India rebutted American demands, opting to continue the procurement of Russian oil. Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar expressed his viewpoint on buying Russian oil, asserting that this is the best deal on the table for India.

In order to counter the U.S. tariff pressure, the Modi government has sought rapprochement with China. The visit of the Indian External Affairs Minister to China, followed by the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister to India, reinstated diplomatic visits between the two countries whose relations had been contentious after multiple border conflicts. However, the biggest development in India-China relations has been the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the SCO Summit in Tianjin, China, after 7 years. The two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening bilateral ties and resolving the longstanding border issues, calling each other developing partners rather than rivals.

Don’t Undercut America’s Military Power by Undermining Its AI

Joseph F. Dunford

Source Link

In the U.S. military and intelligence communities, we can’t cut corners. We must equip our highly trained people with the most advanced weapons and the most powerful technology available—because lives, missions, and the defense of freedom depend on it.

So why would we shortchange our troops and analysts by undermining artificial intelligence (AI), the very technology that’s quickly becoming one of the most decisive capabilities in the 21st Century?

Today, AI is beginning to deliver meaningful operational gains for the Defense Department (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC). AI is being used to simulate battlefield conditions in training, process vast amounts of information in support of decision making and intelligence, enhance cyber defense, enable real-time combat system updates, and field autonomous weapons systems.

If we underinvest in American AI or place heavy-handed restrictions on its development, we don’t just risk falling behind in innovation. We risk falling behind on the front lines.

Unfortunately, that risk is growing. Policymakers of both parties have proposed more than 1,000 AI rules at the state level, many of which, while well-intentioned, could slow the development of powerful, American-made AI models and hand our adversaries a lasting advantage.

Meanwhile, misguided efforts to rewrite longstanding fair use copyright principles or overly restrict the data AI systems can be trained on may sound like minor regulatory tweaks, but in reality, they strike at the heart of how these systems function. And their consequences for national security could be severe.

Why does training data matter so much? Because large language AI models (LLMs) don’t “reason” like humans—they learn patterns from the data they’ve seen. The broader and more representative the training data, the more accurately they can interpret complex scenarios, spot emerging threats, or generate mission-relevant insights.

DOD Cyberspace Operations:About 500 Organizations Have Roles, with Some Potential Overlap

Source Link

Governments, groups, and individuals with malicious intent can all pose threats to U.S. cyberspace. DOD's offensive, defensive, and other cyberspace operations support the nation and its allies and partners and protect DOD's own information network.

We examined the Department of Defense's cyberspace operations workforce. It includes about:

440 organizations

61,000 personnel

9,500 contractors

In addition, it has about 70 organizations and 3,400 personnel in supporting roles.

There may be opportunities to consolidate cyberspace operations training and other services. Our recommendations address these issues.

According to data provided by Department of Defense (DOD) components, DOD has established almost 440 organizations that contain about 61,000 military and civilian personnel (and over 9,500 contractors), to conduct cyberspace operations. These organizations are most often aligned with U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) or retained by the military services and conduct a mixture of offensive, defensive, and DOD Information Network operations (see figure). CYBERCOM-aligned organizations include organizations such as Navy cyber strike activities and Army cyber protection battalions that oversee tactical Cyber Mission Force teams. Military service organizations include units such as Air Force communications squadrons and Marine Corps radio battalions. Other organizations include cybersecurity service providers that provide network protection services to non-service components, such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Department of Defense Organizations Conducting Cyberspace Operations

To enable organizations conducting cyberspace operations, each unit is supported by organizations providing budgetary, personnel, policy, and training support. GAO identified 70 organizations and about 3,400 personnel that provide support to cyberspace operations. These include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, military department, and service headquarters, and other organizations.

Russia’s Cyber Firms Are Getting Rich During War

Justin Sherman

Source Link

Ahead of his Alaska meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump threatened “severe consequences” for Russia if it did not stop its violence in Ukraine. More than three years into Russia’s full-scale war, however, one pillar of the Kremlin’s power has evaded its share of consequences: Russia’s cyber industry.

Russia has been home to competitive, innovative cybersecurity companies for decades. Many of these companies provide products and services to the state, ranging from defensive firewalls to specialized trainings to offensive hacking capabilities. (While the energy sector makes up a significant portion of Russia’s gross domestic product, the strategic importance of several other industries—private military companies for projecting power; cyber firms for blocking foreign hacks and facilitating offensive operations—shows that Russia is far more than, as some reductively quip, a “gas station with nukes.”) But despite the waves of sanctions put on Russia since February 2022, these firms’ closeness to the regime, and Russia’s growing technological isolation, some of Russia’s top cyber firms made more money in 2024 than ever before.

Plenty of Russian cyber firms—even sanctioned intelligence contractors—are continuing to build commercial products during war, illicitly access Western software, and land deals in the likes of Latin America, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific. Their profits and adaptation during war are striking. The success of these firms underscores some of the biggest cracks in Western efforts to technologically isolate Russia—and requires American policymakers to rethink their “trusted vendor” approach to global cybersecurity.

Russia’s technology sector might not rival its Chinese peer in economic scale, technological breadth, or hardware manufacturing (where Russia’s capacity is dismal). Yet some of the world’s most competitive, innovative cybersecurity firms came from Russia. Kaspersky was founded in 1997, opened its first international office in the United Kingdom in 1999, and built its antivirus software for pocket computers in 2001. By 2003, it had opened offices in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and China. While less widely known than Kaspersky, plenty of other cyber companies, such as Positive Technologies and Security Code, cropped up in the ensuing years, offering network security, penetration testing, and other services to a growing market.

Former CDC head says she was fired for refusing Kennedy's vaccine changes

Nadine Yousif

Sourec Link

The former head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said she was fired last month for refusing to sign off on changes to vaccine policy "regardless of the scientific evidence."

Dr Susan Monarez also told a Senate committee on Wednesday she was sacked for refusing a request from Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr to dismiss CDC vaccine experts "without cause."

"He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign," she said.

Kennedy fired Dr Monarez less than a month after she was sworn in as head of the agency that leads the US response to infectious and chronic diseases, adding to a heated political fight over the changes he has made to his department this year.

Testifying alongside the former chief medical officer for the agency, who resigned after the firing, Dr Monarez told the health committee she had a meeting with Kennedy on 25 August, where he "demanded" two things from her.

The first was that she approve every recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kennedy had dismissed the committee's full membership in June, and has appointed all of its new members

The second, Dr Monarez said, was "to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy, without cause."

When she refused to resign, Kennedy said he had already spoken to the White House about having her removed, she said, adding he informed her he was in frequent communication with President Donald Trump about changes to US vaccine policy.

Kennedy, a notable vaccine sceptic, has previously denied that she was told to sign off on vaccine recommendations that did not have a scientific basis.

Obama says US faces 'political crisis' after killing of Charlie Kirk

Mike Wendling

Source Link

Former US President Barack Obama has warned of a "political crisis of the sort that we haven't seen before" in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk.

At an event in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Obama said he did not know Kirk and disagreed with many of his views, but called the killing "horrific and a tragedy".

He criticised Donald Trump's remarks towards his political opponents and pointed to previous Republican presidents who, he said, emphasised national unity in moments of high tension, US media report.

In response, the White House called Obama the "architect of modern political division".

Kirk, 31, died of a single gunshot wound while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem on 10 September.

On Tuesday, Tyler Robinson, 22, was formally charged with Kirk's murder, weapons offences and other charges. Prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty.

Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray said Robinson had sent text messages which allegedly said he shot Kirk because he "had enough of his hatred".

Before Robinson was captured, top Trump allies pinned blame for the killing on left-wing activists and rhetoric from Democratic lawmakers and their supporters.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has suggested that the administration will crack down on "hate speech" – although there is no specific US hate speech law. Vice-President JD Vance has led calls to expose people who celebrated or condoned Kirk's killing or were critical of him after his slaying.

"Call them out, and hell, call their employer," Vance said as he guest-hosted Kirk's podcast.

Speaking in Erie, Pennsylvania, Obama said: "I think at moments like this, when tensions are high, then part of the job of the president is to pull people together."

Katty Kay: America is at a dangerous crossroads following the Charlie Kirk shooting

Katty Kay

Source Link

It has been a brutal week in America and I'm not the only one wondering whether the country can pull itself out of this spiral of hatred and violence.

After one of the most searing assassinations in US history, the governor of Utah pleaded for Americans to turn down the political temperature.

But hardly anyone that I've spoken to since Charlie Kirk's death thinks that will be the path the country will choose. Not anytime soon, at least.

Recent history is full of examples where America has chosen not to come together after a tragedy. It didn't happen 14 years ago after a Democratic congresswoman was shot in the head in Arizona. Nor eight years ago, when a Republican congressman was shot during baseball practice.

Americans didn't even come together in the face of a global pandemic. In fact, Covid made divisions worse.

The reason is simple, yet hard to change. The incentives that fuel American political life reward the people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.

Around the country, you're more likely to get elected to political office if you run on policies and rhetoric that appeal to your political base, rather than the political middle (it's the depressing byproduct of gerrymandering - the original sin behind America's dysfunctional, divided politics).

Equally, in the media, people who opine about politics are rewarded for being more extreme and stoking outrage — that's the way to get more eyeballs and, ultimately, more advertising dollars.

This incentive structure is what makes Utah Governor Spencer Cox something of an American exception.

The War on American Intelligence

Matthew Savill

Source Link

The US Intelligence Community is under sustained attack from its own government. Countries like the UK will try to minimise the fallout but will have to consider the US a less reliable intelligence partner for the duration of the crisis.

The US Intelligence Community is under attack. That in itself is not news – its officers wage a daily, usually unseen struggle with adversary services from countries like Russia, China and Iran. What is new is that this adversary now sits in Washington DC: the current US administration. It knows precisely where US intelligence is vulnerable and how to wound it.

The Call is Coming from Inside the House

Clashes between intelligence professionals and political leaders are not unusual. After events like the Iraq War, or Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine, politicians have often demanded reforms or new leadership. But the scale and intensity of the current upheaval is almost unprecedented, and probably not matched by anything seen in more than a generation

Within seven months of President Donald Trump's inauguration, the heads of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have been forced out, along with the NSA's deputy, the acting Chair of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), and other intelligence officials. FBI officials linked to investigations of 6 January or Trump’s earlier conduct have been sidelined. Serving intelligence staff have seen their security clearances stripped: a career-ending punishment. Units dealing with election interference and foreign influence had their mandates curtailed or disbanded. In effect, Washington has launched a purge of its own intelligence apparatus.

It is the 'Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax'

The rationale is no secret. Senior officials, most notably Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel, say they are cleansing the community of 'politicisation' and 'abuse' supposedly committed under Democratic administrations. The core of their case is that US intelligence abetted what Trump calls the 'Russia collusion hoax' or in Gabbard’s phrase a 'years-long coup against the president'.

Unquestioning Support for Israel Will Only Deepen America’s Problems in the Middle East

Trita Parsi and Marcus Stanley

Source Link

The U.S. is in danger of being further captured by Israel’s foreign policy agenda. Continuing military support for Israel without exercising leverage to constrain Israel’s actions will draw the U.S. into ever-greater military and political commitments in the Middle East, at a major cost to American resources, prestige, and interests.

U.S. assistance to Israel is the crucial enabling factor for Israel’s aggressive military posture. U.S. military aid to Israel has at least tripled since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. directly provided one-third of Israel’s own defense budget in 2024. U.S. military operations in the region since the start of the Gaza war have indirectly added billions of dollars to the amount the U.S. has spent on behalf of Israel.

Yet Israel’s security doctrine directly threatens the long-term American interest in establishing a stable, self-sustaining security order in the Middle East, which would help enable a significantly lower U.S. military presence and level of involvement in the region. Israel’s current course in its conflicts will require more U.S. military engagement, not less, with no clear end in sight.

Israeli intentions seem to include the destruction of the current regime in Iran, a permanent disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the occupation of territory within Syria, a mass forced expulsion of the millions of remaining civilians in Gaza, and an annexation of the West Bank. But none of these, let alone all of them, can be achieved without considerably expanded long-term U.S. military and political support.

Unless and until the U.S. demonstrates that it can withhold military support for Israeli actions that do not align with U.S. interests, Israel faces no clear incentive to change its policies. The history of the Middle East shows that even military victories such as the 1967 Six-Day War or the 1990–91 Gulf War do not create peace and stability unless they are accompanied by creative diplomacy and mutual restraint. Israel must be a participant in such diplomacy. But it is highly unlikely that Israel will show the needed restraint so long as U.S. support is unconditional.

Army University Press

Military Review, September-October 2025, v. 105, no. 5 

Fighting for the Day After: Preserving Chinese Maritime Infrastructure in a Conventional War

Political Troops: The U.S. Army in the Adriatic, 1918–1919

Back to the Future … Toward a Ready Army Reserve Medical Force

A Class for Cash: Planning to Pay the Way

Sustaining the Fight: How the 21st TSC Supports Ukraine’s Defense

Communication Strategery: Rethinking Strategic Communication for U.S. Military Public Affairs

Training Safety: A Leadership Imperative

The Battle of Riga: A Case Study for Successful Breakthrough Operations

Distributed Logistics and Deterrence

Russia’s Changes in the Conduct of War Based on Lessons from Ukraine: Adapting Technology, Force Structures, and the Defence Industry

Cadets’ Perceptions of Hand-to-Hand Combatives Instruction for Officer Development

The Evolution of Air Defense: Adapting to Emerging Threats

Spotting the Machine in the Margins: A Non-Tech Guide for Army Professional Military Education

Instructors to Detect Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Writing

Expectation of Valor: Planning for the Iraq War

Can Cyber Privateers Help Us Combat Cybercrime?

Rick Bennett

Source Link

Last month, Arizona congressman David Schweikert introduced the Scam Farms Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025 (H.R. 4988) to the House of Representatives. The bill would “authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to acts of aggression against the United States by a member of a criminal enterprise or any conspirator associated with an enterprise involved in cybercrimes, and for other purposes.”

With this power, the president could empower private citizens or private companies to attack cyber scammers.

The structure is similar to how pirates and privateers once attacked foreign enemies at sea on behalf of their government. In fact, the practice may have won the Revolutionary War for the United States. Estimates suggest that the 1776 Continental Navy had a mere 64 ships, compared to 1,697 licensed and bonded privateer vessels. Those 64 ships had 1,242 guns, compared to 14,872 privateer guns. As a result, the Continental Navy captured only 196 ships compared to the 2,283 ships captured by the privateers.

Could this practice of privateering end the current cyber war? Should the United States consider mobilizing privateers in today’s cyber war? Couldn’t government resources do the job? The answer to questions such as these may be found in your own email inbox.

First, consider how many scamming, phishing, or spoofing emails you receive each day. Forget headlines about ransomware paid, or about the billions of dollars lost every year to increasingly clever miscreants. How often have you been inconvenienced or downright victimized by cybercrime? Have you found success reporting such invasions to the FBI or other legal authorities? Probably not. Yet, if you tried to wreak your own revenge on the scammers, you’d be in violation of federal law.

Back in 2010, I started promoting cyber privateering as I worked on a novel called Daddy’s Little Felons which drills into the concept. It’s taken about 15 years for the idea to gain traction. Earlier this year, my Utah senator Mike Lee proposed that Congress bring back letters of marque and reprisal. But it took until August 2025 for H.R. 4988 to be introduced.

Nvidia is buying a $5 billion stake in Intel

Chris Morris

Source Link

Intel stock soared 25% shortly after markets Thursday. Nvidia stock rose about 2%%.

“This historic collaboration tightly couples NVIDIA’s AI and accelerated computing stack with Intel’s CPUs and the vast x86 ecosystem — a fusion of two world-class platforms. Together, we will expand our ecosystems and lay the foundation for the next era of computing,” Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said in a statement.

Nvidia will buy Intel shares at a price of $23.28, slightly less than the company's closing price on Wednesday, but more than the $20.47 per share the government paid. The deal will require regulatory approvals and will make Nvidia a 4% owner of Intel.

The CEOs of the two companies will hold a news conference Thursday at 1 p.m. E.T. to discuss the deal.

While the companies will work together to develop the new chips, Nvidia has not yet committed to a manufacturing deal with Intel for them. Instead, it will design custom processors for data centers, which Nvidia will sell alongside its AI GPUs. Nvidia will ensure its chips and the Intel chips communicate at higher speeds, which will encourage adoption.

At least one analyst said that while this is certainly a win for Intel, it could be a bigger victory for Nvidia in the long run.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Is Bananas for Google Gemini’s AI Image Generator

Source Link

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is in London, standing in front of a room full of journalists, outing himself as a huge fan of Gemini’s Nano Banana. “How could anyone not love Nano Banana? I mean Nano Banana, how good is that? Tell me it’s not true!” He addresses the room. No one responds. “Tell me it’s not true! It’s so good. I was just talking to Demis [Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind] yesterday and I said ‘How about that Nano Banana! How good is that?’”

It looks like lots of people agree with him: The popularity of the Nano Banana AI image generator—which launched in August and allows users to make precise edits to AI images while preserving the quality of faces, animals, or other objects in the background—caused a 300 million–image surge for Gemini in the first few days of September, according to a post on X by Josh Woodward, VP of Google Labs and Google Gemini.

Huang, whose company was among a cohort of big US technology companies to announce investments in data centers, supercomputers, and AI research in the UK on Tuesday, is on a high. Speaking ahead of a white-tie event with UK prime minister Keir Starmer (where he plans to wear custom black leather tails), he’s boisterously optimistic about the future of AI in the UK, saying the country is “too humble” about the country’s potential for AI advancements.

He cites the UK’s pedigree in themes as wide as the industrial revolution, steam trains, DeepMind (now owned by Google), and university researchers, as well as other tangential skills. “No one fries food better than you do,” he quips. “Your tea is good. You’re great. Come on!”

Nvidia announced a $683 million equity investment in data center builder Nscale this week, a move that—alongside investments from OpenAI and Microsoft—has propelled the company to the epicenter of this AI push in the UK. Huang estimates that Nscale will generate more than $68 billion in revenue over six years. “I’ll go on record to say I’m the best thing that’s ever happened to him,” he says, referring to Nscale CEO Josh Payne.

“As AI services get deployed—I’m sure that all of you use it. I use it every day, and it’s improved my learning, my thinking. It’s helped me access information, access knowledge a lot more efficiently. It helps me write, helps me think, it helps me formulate ideas. So my experience with AI is likely going to be everybody’s experience. I have the benefit of using all the AI—how good is that?”

Watchdog Says Military Can Make Cyber Ops More Efficient

David Roza

Source Link

The Department of Defense has about 440 organizations, 61,000 uniformed and civilian personnel, and more than 9,500 contractors working in cyberspace operations, but there may be room to pare down that sprawling $14.5 billion enterprise, the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office said in a Sept. 17 report.

“Although some overlap can be intentional and appropriate, unnecessary overlap can lead to organizations paying for the same service or product twice or more,” GAO wrote.

Those include foundational training courses and 23 cybersecurity service providers, or CSSPs, that perform similar functions, which GAO said may present an opportunity to consolidate. (Government Accountability Office graphic)

The GAO report comes out amid a renewed debate over whether the Defense Department should stand up a cyber force as a separate service branch. Currently, each branch organizes, trains, and equips its own cyberspace units who either work for their respective services, in joint roles, or are presented to U.S. Cyber Command.

Earlier this month, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, released an implementation plan for building a cyber force which retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, FDD’s senior director on cyber and technology innovation, said could serve as a roadmap for standing up such a service. FDD suggested the cyber force would be a separate service within the Department of the Army, just like how the Space Force exists within the Department of the Air Force.

“There’s a chance that President Trump makes the decision in six to 12 weeks,” Montgomery told reporters, according to Federal News Network. “And if that’s the case, someone needs to have done a blueprint.”

FDD has advocated for a separate cyber force for years, but last month the Center for Strategic and International Studies partnered with FDD to start a commission for analyzing solutions to problems in the current military cyber force, such as a shortage of skilled personnel and inconsistent training.

Making The Defense Acquisition System More Warfighter-Centric

Jeff Kwastel

Source Link

The Defense Acquisition System needs to become more warfighter-centric to keep up with the demands of the modern-day battlefield. This shift requires more and better warfighter input into acquisition, as well as uniformed scientists and engineers to operate with sufficient authority to rapidly innovate.

Download Resources Making The Defense Acquisition System More Warfighter-Centric

The historically limited role of warfighters in the acquisition process has contributed to a variety of operational problems. The Defense Acquisition System (DAS) needs to become more warfighter-centric to deliver capabilities that keep up with the rapidly changing demands of the modern day battlefield. This shift requires more and better warfighter input into the design and development process. Moreover, uniformed scientists and engineers need to operate with sufficient acquisition authorities to rapidly innovate solutions to emerging battlefield problems at the tactical edge.

Winning the Next War: Overcoming the U.S. Air Force’s Capacity, Capability, and Readiness Crisis

Source Link

Arlington, VA | September 5, 2025 — The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies is pleased to announce a new entry in its Research Studies series, Winning the Next War: Overcoming the U.S. Air Force’s Capacity, Capability, and Readiness Crisis by Col John “JV” Venable, USAF (Ret.), Senior Resident Fellow at the Mitchell Institute, with Joshua Baker, Research Analyst.

The Air Force’s commitment to generating a highly lethal force that is technologically superior, numerically sufficient, and flown by the most well-trained airmen in the world is the bedrock of deterring aggression in times of peace and prevailing in war. Projecting joint military power demands a robust level of airpower that only the Air Force can provide. Yet today’s United States Air Force is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history. Facing the severely challenging global threat environment for the next decade and beyond, these shortfalls set the conditions for an existential national security crisis.

It is essential that the Trump administration and Congress reverse the service’s decline in capacity, capability, and readiness. The solution demands increasing the Air Force budget, while also shifting internal service funds from Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) into both procurement and operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts specifically aimed at re-establishing readiness to prevail in peer conflict. If the declines in the U.S. Air Force are excused or ignored, the human and material losses we will suffer in the next major conflict risk being significant. That is a price the nation cannot afford.

The Mitchell Institute’s Research Studies serve as an authoritative avenue for innovative, in-depth, insightful, and effective ideas and solutions for strengthening America’s aerospace power.