Rare Earths: China’s Trump Card – OpEd

Lim Teck Ghee

Source Link

The official statements from the United States and China that emerged from their trade talks in London recently were notable for the absence of direct mention to the rare earths issue which appears increasingly the subject of most concern to the Trump administration in what is turning out to be a protracted negotiation process.

It was left to President Donald Trump to articulate this in his social media platform where he provided his assessment of the two day marathon discussions designed, in the words of the U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, to put “meat on the bones” of the agreement reached earlier in Geneva to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs that had reached crushing triple-digit levels.

Immediately following the end of the London meeting, Trump proclaimed on Truth Social in a message that was aimed as much to the Chinese leadership as to his American audience:

OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME. FULL MAGNETS, AND ANY NECESSARY RARE EARTHS, WILL BE SUPPLIED, UP FRONT, BY CHINA. LIKEWISE, WE WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO ….RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114664632971715644

In the first negotiation meeting, the two sides had agreed to drastically roll back tariffs on each other’s goods for an initial 90-day period. There was optimism that this could provide at least a truce to the tariff war begun by Trump. However, sentiment soured quickly over two sticking points – the U.S. ramping up further measures to block China’s access to semiconductor technology; and China’s retaliation by tightening control over rare earths minerals.

Rare earths is the one card which China holds that may well prove to be decisive in not only determining the outcome of the negotiations over the wide range of trade and other economic issues being discussed between the two countries. It may also provide the most strategic and important tool for China to protect its position in the geopolitical rivalry between the two nations as well as other nations that are seen as enemies.

Going Steady: China and Russia’s Economic Ties are Deeper than Washington Thinks

Natalia Chabarovskaya

Source Link

Executive SummaryTrade cooperation between China and Russia has grown in tandem with anti-Russian sanctions and tensions with the West. A common border, economic compatibility, shared geopolitical perspectives and joint opposition to the US have encouraged bilateral relations.

Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine Russia has been increasingly isolated economically, mainly due to Western sanctions, forcing it to rely heavily on China.

The two countries have orchestrated unprecedented levels of coordination through trade in energy resources, electronics, chemicals, and transportation components.

The relationship is unbalanced because Moscow is more dependent on Beijing than Beijing is on Moscow. A “reverse Nixon” strategy by the West — building relations with Russia to wean it off China — is unlikely to succeed because the economic ties are so important to both countries.

Russia is becoming increasingly interconnected with China throughthe use of the Chinese Yuan. A significant sharing of national currencies between the two powers is reflective of their economic ties, and the use of services like China’s UnionPay cards has helped embed the Yuan in Russia’s economy.

While Moscow and Beijing have deepened collaboration, Chinese investors have reduced engagement in Russia due to the risk of Western sanctions. Investment patterns show that while Russia and China are valuable to each other, their economic relationship is not fully unified.

Introduction

The China-Russia partnership has strengthened since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with their economic cooperation expanding steadily at a time of massive Western sanctions against Moscow. Unlike Russia’s deteriorating relationships elsewhere, its strategic alignment with Beijing remains close, and is built on more than a decade of deliberate economic and geopolitical rapprochement. The two countries’ synergy stems from naturally complementary economic systems, shared geoeconomic goals, and mistrust toward the West.

Iraq in the Crossfire

Seth J. Frantzman

Source Link

In the days before Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, the State Department was preparing for a possible evacuation of personnel from Iraq. In the past, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have targeted the US Embassy in Baghdad as well as US military personnel in Iraq. Iraq is in a complex position because it hosts American forces who are part of the US-led coalition to defeat the remnants of ISIS.

In addition, Iraq is home to tens of thousands of military members of the pro-Iranian Popular Mobilization Forces, many of whom vehemently oppose the United States. These groups have targeted Israel with kamikaze drones, as well as targeting Americans. US Central Command head General Michael Kurilla told members of Congress on June 10 that Iranian-linked militias in Iraq are undermining the country.

Iraq was already facing a crisis prior to the Israeli airstrikes on Iran and Iran’s retaliation. In May, the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq sent a delegation to Washington to sign energy deals that could be worth up to $110 billion with HKN Energy and WesternZagros.

In Baghdad, there was outrage. Baghdad has long clashed with the KRG over its energy policy. During the war on ISIS, when the KRG was largely cut off from Baghdad, it exported oil and developed its energy sector. However, that changed after ISIS was defeated and Baghdad sought to reassert control. A crisis in 2017 over the KRG’s drive for independence led to clashes in Kirkuk. Iranian-backed militias have used drones to attack energy fields in the Kurdistan region.

The battle between Baghdad and Erbil extends beyond energy. The Iraqi government has slashed KRG government salaries. Under pressure from Iran, it has also worked to disarm and relocate Kurdish dissident militias operating in Kurdistan.

‘We’re being attacked all the time’: how UK banks stop hackers

Kalyeena Makortoff 

Source Link

It is every bank boss’s worst nightmare: a panicked phone call informs them a cyber-attack has crippled the IT system, rapidly unleashing chaos across the entire UK financial industry.

As household names in other industries, including Marks & Spencer, grapple with the fallout from such hacks, banking executives will be acutely aware that, for them, the stakes are even higher.

Within hours of a successful bank hack, millions of direct debits could fail, leaving rents, mortgages and wages unpaid. Online banking may be blocked, cash machine withdrawals denied, and commuters left in limbo as buses and petrol stations reject payments. News of the attack could spark panic, leading to a run on rival lenders, as customers pull money from their accounts amid fear the disruption could spread.

This situation may seem far-fetched but it is not a long way off from the government’s “reasonable worst-case scenario” if a sophisticated cyber-attack hit a big UK bank. With the financial industry among 14 sectors categorised as “critical national infrastructure”, it is no surprise that a hack is listed on the national risk register, which models some of the biggest threats facing the UK.

Billions of pounds are being spent preventing the kind of devastating attacks that shut down systems at three retailers, Harrods, the Co-op and M&S, this spring.

“The amount of money [that] banks, all of us, will be spending on our systems is enormous today. And it has to be,” the UK chief executive of HSBC, Ian Stuart, told MPs last month. “We are being attacked all the time.”

The West has forgotten the art of strategy China and Russia are the new grandmasters

Source Link

World-class chess players know the difference between strategy and tactics better than politicians do. To win in chess you need to start with a strategy — a long-term plan that gets you to a position of superiority. Then you close in with a sequence of tactical moves. As Max Euwe, the Dutch chess grandmaster of the 1930s, once observed: “Strategy requires thought. Tactics require observation.”

The West is all tactics. The East is mostly strategy. You need both because even the most brilliant short-term moves do not add up to a strategy. Just look at the history of US military intervention since World War II. Each of them had their short-term rationale, even Iraq. But has it made the US safer? Has it made the world safer? Has it brought democracy? Has anyone become more civilised as a result?

Israel’s strike against Iran is a classic case of a trade-off where a short-term tactical manoeuvre is bought at the expense of a weaker strategic position in the long run. I am not the first commentator to observe that Israel’s attack against Iran will succeed tactically, possibly with sensational success, but it will not stop Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Any future Iranian strategic planner will logically conclude from the last series of attacks that Iran absolutely needs the bomb. Other countries in the region might too. Ukraine’s biggest regret is having agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons. Had the country kept them, Putin would never have attacked.

Lack of strategic thinking plays an important part in the decline of the West. The biggest strategic own-goal of all has been to drive China and Russia closer together — and Iran closer to both. These countries do not form an alliance in the Western sense. What they have in common is an overriding strategic goal: to become independent of Western coercion.

Russia’s Information Confrontation Doctrine in Practice (2014–Present): Intent, Evolution and Implications

Source Link

This paper outlines how Russia has leveraged its information confrontation doctrine (ICD) – encompassing cyber capabilities, propaganda, psychological operations and strategic messaging – to shape both its domestic environment and the international order to serve its long-term goal of great power restoration, which includes a revision of the European security order.

Strategic intent: The ICD serves Russia’s overarching goal of reclaiming its great power status, including revising the European security order on terms that would see the withdrawal of US military presence and commitment from the continent.

 This aspiration guides Russia’s foreign, military and information strategies aimed at reversing post-Cold War geopolitical setbacks and securing its position in a multipolar world order.Integrated multi-domain strategy: Russia’s ICD integrates cyber operations, electronic warfare, psychological warfare and conventional forms of sabotage into a unified strategic framework. It exploits vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure and societal cohesion, blurring the boundaries between peace and war to achieve political objectives below the threshold of conventional conflict.Domestic control and regime stability: 

Russia enforces tight control over its domestic information environment through censorship, surveillance, manipulation of the information infrastructure and suppression of dissent. This control is essential to maintaining regime stability and reinforcing the narrative of external threats to national sovereignty.Regional influence and strategic intimidation: 

Russia systematically employs ICD tools against former Soviet republics and states aspiring to join Western institutions, aiming to intimidate and dissuade alignment. Of particular concern is the accession of neighbouring states to NATO and the European Union, which are perceived as threats to the regime. This has driven Russia to deploy a range of cyber operations, disinformation campaigns and covert political influence efforts to assert its regional influence and counter Western integration.Western destabilisation: 

The Kremlin conducts sustained disinformation and cyber operations to destabilise Western democracies. These operations aim to weaken trust in democratic institutions, erode international cohesion and amplify societal divisions through targeted manipulation of perceptions and narratives.

Book Review | Putin’s Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine

Mykyta Zhuiko 

Source Link

Mark Galeotti’s Putin’s Wars offers a detailed analysis of how Vladimir Putin has employed military force, including regular and special operations units, as well as the Federal Security Service (FSB), to shape Russia’s political system, consolidate domestic power, and advance the country’s global position. Galeotti, an internationally recognized expert on Russian security affairs, demonstrates that Putin’s wars – from Chechnya in the 1990s to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 – follow a consistent pattern, with methods of warfare continuously refined and adapted to both immediate adversaries and the evolving global politico-economic environment. The book serves as both a historical chronicle and a warning to democratic world leaders about how military power is employed by authoritarian regimes, particularly those with nuclear capabilities and substantial financial resources. Galeotti’s central thesis is that Putin’s wars are carefully calculated moves within a long-term strategy to maintain Russia’s status as a “great power.” At times, war reinforces Putin’s domestic authority by combating separatist movements or diverting public attention from internal problems; at other times, war extends influence abroad or sends strategic signals to the West. Galeotti elucidates how each conflict—Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria, and Ukraine—fits into this overarching strategic framework.

The book begins with the First Chechen War (1994–1996), during which the Russian military was still recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. It then moves to the Second Chechen War (1999–2009), marked by extreme brutality and bloodshed but instrumental in propelling Putin to power. By employing ruthless force alongside unconventional tactics, Putin not only reestablished control over Chechnya but also crafted his image as a strong and decisive leader. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 demonstrated Russia’s growing military capabilities and willingness to use force to assert its interests in its near abroad. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 further exemplified Putin’s strategy of employing limited military intervention combined with political manipulation to achieve strategic objectives. Russia’s involvement in Syria allowed it to test its air force, evaluate new weaponry, develop special forces tactics in localized operations, and demonstrate its capacity to project power far from its borders. r.

Israel’s War of Grand Ambition

Source Link

Israel cannot afford to treat Iran’s threats of nuclear Armageddon as mere bloviating. But Iran is hardly alone in letting illusory ambitions cloud its judgment: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s fixation on total victory is as misguided as it is dangerous.

TEL AVIV – The rapidly escalating military conflict between Israel and Iran represents a clash of ambitions. Iran seeks to become a nuclear power, and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu longs to be remembered as the Israeli leader who categorically thwarted Iran’s nuclear program, which he views as an existential threat to Israel’s survival. Both dreams are as misguided as they are dangerous.

Understanding Conflict Through Satellite Imagery

Source Link

In recent years, high-resolution satellite imagery and geospatial analysis have become increasingly valuable tools in documenting the effects of conflict, including the widespread destruction of infrastructure, property, and lives in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan. In January, satellite imagery played a pivotal role in the U.S. Department of State’s determination that members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias had committed genocide in their attacks against non-Arab communities in several locations in Sudan. Most recently it has been used to document the damage caused by missile and drone strikes in the ongoing India and Pakistan conflict.

Conducting research on sensitive or contentious issues in fragile and conflict-affected areas where demographic data is flawed, access to remote and insecure areas is challenging, and representative samples prove particularly elusive is a perennial problem. In these terrains, fieldwork is typically limited and skewed by security concerns and the associated costs, and it is often the voices of elites that are the loudest and most prominent. The Farsi phrase “Can hearing ever be like seeing?” reflects the greater weight that should be given to the things we can see for ourselves, compared to what we are told.

To this end, satellite imagery and informed analysis can be usefully deployed to study complex and sensitive issues in fragile and conflict-affected areas and support more effective policy development. While imagery is not a substitute for talking to the people directly impacted by conflict, our research on the outbreak of heavy fighting between Iran and Afghanistan in May 2023 shows that it is a critical tool in developing a better understanding of these complex terrains, where the loudest voices can dominate the media and social landscapes and skew research findings—and, all too often, policy outcomes.

Background to the Conflict

In May 2023, heavy fighting broke out between Iranian and Taliban forces on the border between Afghanistan and Iran. At the time, the media and many analysts looked to explain the incident as a result of the escalating “war of words” in the week before between senior officials in the Taliban and the Iranian Republic.

Ron Paul: Great Big Ugly Surveillance State – OpEd

Ron Paul

Source Link

On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order “Eliminating Information Silos.” The order directed heads of federal agencies to make sure officials designated by the president “have full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, data, software systems, and information technology systems.” The executive order did not attract much attention until it was more recently revealed that the administration was working with tech company Palantir to create a database containing all information collected by all federal agencies on all US citizens.

A database consisting of all the information of American citizens collected by the various federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Pentagon would be a major step in creating a total surveillance state. This database could come in handy to future Dr. Faucis seeking to enforce mask and vaccine mandates. Those with access to this database could see personal health records, education records, and tax returns. They may even be able to see how many firearms individuals have purchased and if they were associated with any organizations the government had labeled “extremist.”

Despite the obvious threat to liberty the “big ugly database” poses, some commentators and “influencers” who would normally oppose, or at least be skeptical of, expansion of the surveillance state are supporting it because they believe it will be used to locate illegal immigrants. Some conservatives are supporting this proposal because it will help identify students who have publicly opposed the U.S. government’s support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Ironically, many of those supporting government cracking down on “anti-Israel” students came to fame (and in some cases fortune) as critics of “wokeness” and cancel culture.

The abandonment of liberty because fear drives people to trust government promises of safety is a phenomenon we have witnessed several times this century. An obvious example is the way many former friends of freedom supported the PATRIOT Act and other infringements on liberty following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We also saw it during the covid hysteria when many embraced mask and vaccine mandates. Following the 2008 market meltdown, normally rather staunch opponents of government intervention supported the bailouts because they agreed with then-President George W. Bush who said he had “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”

Israel Warns Tehran Residents To Evacuate After Saying Iran Will ‘Pay Price’ For Attacks

RFE RL

Source Link

(RFE/RL) — Israel has warned residents of some parts of Tehran to evacuate in a sign of imminent air attacks after earlier threatening the capital will “pay the price” for Iranian missile strikes hit Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing eight people.

Israel’s military posted the warning on June 16 specifically naming Tehran’s District 3 saying it “will take action to attack the Iranian regime’s military infrastructure.” The district, which has some 300,000 residents, is home to Iran’s state broadcaster, an intelligence division headquarters, and some high-ranking leaders.

Tehran’s streets have been packed with traffic heading out of the capital as residents flee after several days of air attacks that have targeted nuclear and military facilities, as well as residential buildings that Israel said house senior officials and nuclear scientists.

Some residents reported long lines at gas stations and limits on the amount of fuel customers could receive, while in the north, where many are headed, food shortages were starting to appear.

The warning were issued as the prospects of an escalation in the conflict between the two countries hang over a Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada.

Earlier in the day, Israel’s national emergency services said that 23 people have now died in Iranian attacks on Israel since June 13, when Israel launched air strikes at nuclear and military targets across Iran over the country’s nuclear program. Iranian authorities say Israeli attacks have killed at least 224 people over the same time period.

Rescue workers continued to sift through rubble and debris in the northern coastal city of Haifa after Iran launched attacks in the early hours of June 16 that injured more than 100 Israelis, while in Tel Aviv, missiles hit several residential buildings, some of which were close to a US consulate.

“The residents of Tehran will pay the price, and soon,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said, accusing Iran of purposely targeting residential buildings.

The Battle for TikTok Is at the Forefront of a Deeper Geopolitical Trend

Shweta Singh

Source Link

After years of mounting scrutiny over TikTok’s data practices, in 2024 the Chinese video platform was threatened with a forced sale in the United States or a nationwide ban. With the deadline looming on June 19, China-U.S. tech rivalry has entered a new and more aggressive phase. TikTok vowed to fight forced divestment, claiming it would “trample” free speech.

But what started as a controversy over data privacy now has global implications. This conflict is about more than just an app. It represents a shift in the balance of digital power – one that could redefine how nations view national security, economic sovereignty, and the internet itself.

In light of my research on artificial intelligence (AI) bias, algorithmic fairness, and the societal impact of digital platforms and my experience advising government on AI regulation and digital ethics, I see TikTok as the flashpoint of a broader, more dangerous trend. Digital spaces are becoming battlefronts for geopolitical influence.

TikTok has evolved from a social media app to – in the eyes of some policymakers – a digital weapon. Its massive global following has made it a cultural juggernaut. But this viral success has also made it a prime target in the escalating China-U.S. tech war.

U.S. politicians worry that TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, could be forced by the Chinese government to hand over American user data, or manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to serve Beijing’s political agenda. The concerns are serious, even if not proven. Platforms have been used to sway political sentiment before – as with Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

But TikTok is different. Its algorithm isn’t like those of other social platforms that rely on a user’s social graph (what you follow, who you know) to connect people, organizations and places. Instead, TikTok uses a real-time recommendation system based on micro-interactions: how long you watch a video, whether you pause or replay it, and even your swipe patterns. The result is an ultra-addictive content stream. This gives TikTok an almost unprecedented power to shape opinions, whether intentionally or not.

Why Israel’s Attack on Iran Is a Geopolitical Blow for India

Gaurav Sen

Source Link

On June 12, Israel launched a significant military operation targeting Iran, marking a dramatic escalation in the ongoing conflict between the two nations. This operation, described as a preemptive strike, aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear program and eliminating key military leaders associated with it. The ongoing strikes exchanged since then by Israel and Iran will have significant implications for India, given its strategic interests and relationships with both nations.

The Israeli airstrikes focused on multiple military and nuclear sites across Iran, including facilities in Tehran and other strategic locations. Reports indicate that the strikes resulted in the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian officials, including Major General Mohammad Bagheri and Major General Hossein Salami, among others. The Israeli military confirmed that the operation was intended to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities and missile programs.

Iranian officials vowed to respond decisively to what they view as an act of aggression. Following the Israeli strikes, Iran declared a state of emergency and launched retaliatory missile attacks against Israel. Reports indicate that Iran fired dozens of missiles, with some reaching Israeli territory, leading to casualties and damage.

The conflict is bad news for India for several reasons.

First, Iran serves as India’s conduit to Central Asia. India has invested billions in Iran’s Chabahar port – a competitor to Gwadar port in Pakistan – to establish a direct link with Central Asia. Central Asia is crucial for India, not only regarding energy security but also due to its abundance of rare earth minerals, but India does not share a direct border with the region, limited trade potential. The Iran-Israel conflict will jeopardize India’s connectivity plans and impede the long-anticipated progress of the International North-South Corridor.

The regional escalation will also sever the connection between India and Afghanistan, a trade relations that also runs through Chabahar. In that scenario, China will swiftly supplant India in Afghanistan, as it has been endeavoring to do for an extended period. The recent China-Pakistan-Afghanistan trilateral dialogue was just the latest example of Beijing’s efforts in that regard.

eserved.

How Ukraine’s F-16s Are Leveling the Battlefield Against Russia

Harrison Kass

Source Link

The delivery of US-made F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft to the Ukrainian military was arguably the most highly publicized import of the Russia-Ukraine war. A fourth-generation fighter jet, the F-16, enhanced Ukraine’s ability to defend its airspace and counter Russian aerial threats. The following is a breakdown of how Kyiv uses its donated F-16s.

How Ukraine Employs the F-16

F-16s excel at intercepting aerial threats. Tasked with intercepting incoming Russian cruise missiles and Iranian-made Shahed drones, the F-16 provides a more agile and responsive defense when compared to older Soviet-era aircraft that the Ukrainians had been using earlier in the war.

Ukraine also uses its F-16s for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), in much the same manner as the “Wild Weasel” squadron of the US Air Force. Equipped with High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs), the Ukrainian F-16s can target and neutralize Russian radar systems, which reduces the effectiveness of Russian enemy surface-to-air missiles—thereby making the airspace safer to operate within.

The F-16s have also been used for air-to-ground precision strikes. Specifically, the Ukrainians have used the F-16 to target Russian troop positions and ammunition depots, leveraging advanced targeting systems to minimize collateral damage. The F-16 is used to engage in air-to-air combat to establish and maintain control of Ukraine’s airspace and to deter Russian aircraft from conducting operations over Ukrainian territory.

Adapting the F-16 for Ukrainian Use

For the Ukrainians to fully utilize their F-16s, several adaptations have been made. With respect to training and integration, Ukrainian pilots underwent an intensive training program in Europe and the United States. The training focused on transitioning from Soviet-era aircraft to Western systems and included both theoretical instruction and practical flight experience.

Iraq in the Crossfire

Seth J. Frantzman

Source Link

In the days before Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, the State Department was preparing for a possible evacuation of personnel from Iraq. In the past, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have targeted the US Embassy in Baghdad as well as US military personnel in Iraq. Iraq is in a complex position because it hosts American forces who are part of the US-led coalition to defeat the remnants of ISIS.

In addition, Iraq is home to tens of thousands of military members of the pro-Iranian Popular Mobilization Forces, many of whom vehemently oppose the United States. These groups have targeted Israel with kamikaze drones, as well as targeting Americans. US Central Command head General Michael Kurilla told members of Congress on June 10 that Iranian-linked militias in Iraq are undermining the country.

Iraq was already facing a crisis prior to the Israeli airstrikes on Iran and Iran’s retaliation. In May, the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq sent a delegation to Washington to sign energy deals that could be worth up to $110 billion with HKN Energy and WesternZagros.

In Baghdad, there was outrage. Baghdad has long clashed with the KRG over its energy policy. During the war on ISIS, when the KRG was largely cut off from Baghdad, it exported oil and developed its energy sector. However, that changed after ISIS was defeated and Baghdad sought to reassert control. A crisis in 2017 over the KRG’s drive for independence led to clashes in Kirkuk. Iranian-backed militias have used drones to attack energy fields in the Kurdistan region.

The battle between Baghdad and Erbil extends beyond energy. The Iraqi government has slashed KRG government salaries. Under pressure from Iran, it has also worked to disarm and relocate Kurdish dissident militias operating in Kurdistan.

What’s Israel’s Endgame?

Nahal Toosi

Source Link

Nahal Toosi is POLITICO’s senior foreign affairs correspondent. She has reported on war, genocide and political chaos in a career that has taken her around the world. Her reported column, Compass, delves into the decision-making of the global national security and foreign policy establishment — and the fallout that comes from it.

Israel’s attack on Iran will no doubt set back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. But among many Middle East obsessives, there’s a growing sense that the Israeli operation has the potential to lead to something much bigger: toppling Iran’s Islamist government.

Yeah, I’ll say it. Regime change.

It’s a phrase that normally sends shudders through a Washington and a Middle East chastened by the U.S. experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a concept that has long left President Donald Trump extremely wary; his administration has already put out word it played no role in the attack. And the Israeli government hasn’t declared that regime change is its official objective.

Still, as I’ve listened to Israeli comments on the strikes and learned about their scope, including assassinations of top Iranian military officials, I’ve been struck by how they’re not dismissing the possibility of regime change, either. When you put the moves in the context of Israeli military actions since fall 2023 — strikes that have ousted, helped oust or decimated multiple Iran-allied “regimes” in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria — it doesn’t seem that far-fetched.

Ousting, or at the very least severely weakening, Iran’s regime also is something Israel can arguably do on its own; it doesn’t necessarily need American help on the offensive end.

The Expanding Campaign

Source Link

First, welcome home to the Ukrainian military personnel who were exchanged in the latest Ukraine-Russia prisoner swap. There were four exchanges this week.

In this edition of The Big Five, I examine the latests developments in Russia’s war against Ukraine, provide updates on the Israel-Iran conflict and explore developments in the Pacific theatre.

As always, I conclude with my top five war and national security reads from the week.

Ukraine

While many will be exclusively focused on the Middle East this weekend, I encourage my readers to not take their eyes off the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians continue to defend against Russian ground and aerial onslaughts. They require not only weapons from the west to continue their defence, but our attention and moral support as well.

Russian Casualties Hit One Million. This week, Russian casualties in Ukraine hit the one million mark. It comes as Russia continues to press forward with its summer offensives in the north east, east and south of Ukraine. The UK Ministry of Defence this week provided an update on Russian casualties, which was followed by another post on Russia hitting the one million casualties mark.

Don’t Give Up on Diplomacy With Iran

Source Link

On June 13, Israel initiated a series of airstrikes and covert operations against Iranian nuclear sites and military officials. Dubbed Operation Rising Lion, this sophisticated and multilayered campaign followed days of speculation about an impending assault. So far, the attacks have damaged Iran’s Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities and killed a number of Iranian scientists. They have also claimed the lives of scores of civilians and injured dozens more, razed apartment buildings, and blown up parts of the country’s energy infrastructure. Israelis, meanwhile, have found themselves rushing to shelters as their own cities come under attack.

Right now, there is no indication that the fighting will stop. Both Iran and Israel have signaled that they are willing to keep striking each other. Israel’s defense minister even promised that “Tehran will burn” if the attacks don’t end. The United States, meanwhile, has done little to stop the bloodshed. Instead, U.S. President Donald Trump has sent mixed signals about whether he wants the fighting to cease. His administration has positioned military assets in the area, and according to multiple news reports, U.S. forces are helping Israel shoot down Iranian drones and missiles.

Despite his equivocations, however, Trump has said he still wants to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, and Tehran has left the door open to talks—provided that Israel lets up. The U.S. administration, then, may still have space to forge an agreement.

If Trump wants to avoid a U.S. war with Iran, he should seize it. So far, Israel has inflicted significant but not total damage on Iran’s nuclear program. Even if the fighting drags on, it is unlikely to succeed at wiping out all of it. Elements of Iran’s nuclear program are deeply buried underground, including at the Fordow enrichment site, and the country’s leadership may now have more of an incentive than ever to build the ultimate deterrent. That means if the fighting stops without a deal, 

Tehran could well make a run for a nuclear weapon that only heavy bunker-busting American bombs can seriously delay, at least in the near term. Even then, to truly assure that the threat has been curtailed, the United States would need either a presence on the ground or sustained rounds of military strikes carried out with exhaustive knowledge of Iran’s nuclear operations.

Iran’s long arm is not so muscular anymore

Source Link

The Iranian commanders who fatefully gathered in a Tehran compound last night or were killed as they slept spent decades building the regional militias, the arsenal of missiles and drones, and the nuclear programme that compelled others to take Tehran seriously. They believed they had found the right formula for the defence of Iran’s regime, territory and critical infrastructure. It was a costly endeavour that alienated many of the country’s neighbours and faraway powers and caused havoc in the Middle East, but it gave its leadership an inflated sense of purpose and power. It took two waves of attacks by Israel to shake the whole edifice. Last October, it took out most of Iran’s advanced air defences, after which Israel became the master of the air and of the clock.

With Donald Trump entering the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got the acquiescent partner he needed, with an unlimited supply of weapons and intelligence regardless of the horrors he inflicted on Gaza. Early this morning, Israel decapitated much of Iran’s military and scientific leadership and destroyed some nuclear and military facilities.

Notwithstanding its claim that this was a pre-emptive strike, Israel is the clear aggressor in this case. Judging from the subdued western statements this morning, however, this fact no longer seems so meaningful as international law and diplomatic norms erode in plain sight. This attack is about raw power, not about regional stability or better outcomes for everyone.

Israel has embarked on a campaign that will necessitate several waves of attacks, the key constraint being the availability of aircraft and the distance between its air bases and targets in Iran. The critical facility of Natanz has been hit hard, but other installations remain intact, notably the Fordow enrichment plant, buried deep beneath a mountain.

Israel has once again demonstrated undeniable intelligence superiority and operational prowess. If confirmed, the reports that commando units and drone systems pre-positioned inside Iran were key to the first wave that took out senior commanders and weapons systems suggest that Israel has more tricks up its sleeve. It will keep the advantage and could expand the target list to kill Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and destroy or disable its energy installations.

This will keep the region on edge for weeks to come. Having misjudged Israel’s risk appetite and overstated its own power, Iran has remained behind the curve ever since Hamas’s brutal assault on October 7 2023.

Why Israel had no choice Tehran endangers the whole Middle East

Edward Luttwak

Source Link

One person is responsible for Israel’s attack on Iran: Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Argentine director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, since December 2019.

His predecessors, and especially Mohamed El Baradei, in charge 1997-2009 when it first became clear that Iran’s nuclear efforts were aimed at weapons and not energy, were extremely polite international diplomats, 

who presented the IAEA’s reports on Iran in very restrained language — as if they were describing purely academic research.

Grossi’s reports were entirely different. He was a diplomat until he arrived at IAEA, but from the start of his career in the Argentine foreign service, he had immersed himself in technological questions, acquiring a great deal of engineering expertise over the years.

From the start, Grossi’s investigations in Iran focused on the country’s vast effort to “enrich” uranium, to increase the proportion of radioactive U-235. Some energy reactors can operate with zero enrichment by using heavy water moderators, while others work very well with 3-4% enrichment, or a maximum of 5% of U-235.

Because the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium is extremely expensive, only a handful of the 31 countries that operate nuclear reactors have ever tried it themselves. Most simply buy it from the cheapest source, often Russia as well France, the UK and Kazakhstan.

Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Iran: Searching for the Significant

George Friedman

Source LInk

The Ukrainian drone attack on Russia at the beginning of this month and the Israeli attack on Iran have some striking similarities.

1. Both attacks occurred during negotiations between the United States and the attacked nations (Russia and Iran) that had failed to come to fruition before deadlines set by Washington.

2. Both attacks relied heavily on major, covert intelligence operations.

3. The United States did not seem involved in either operation. However, in Israel’s case, the U.S. was informed in advance, approved the attack and even partly shaped it by prohibiting Israel from killing the leader of Iran. There is less clarity on what the U.S. knew of Ukrainian plans or how it influenced them, but it is unlikely that the U.S. didn’t know about the attack ahead of time.

4. Both attacks had two purposes. The first was the destruction of a strategic asset: long-range aircraft in Russia and nuclear infrastructure in Iran. The second was to create a profound sense of vulnerability in the enemy by using covert operatives deep within enemy territory, sowing uncertainty about the presence of additional covert teams.

5. In both cases, the only response to the attacks, at least at this point, was substantial drone strikes.

6. Neither attack was followed by a conventional military invasion.

The similarities are obvious, but the significance of these similarities is less so and must be considered. From the standpoint of U.S. policy, the operations suggest several things. First, the United States retains a significant interest in these wars. In other words, the desire to disengage from the risks of global involvement is not absolute. The United States retains important interests in both Europe and the Middle East but is limiting its direct involvement. In Israel’s case, the U.S. was aware of the impending attack and set parameters on the action; in Ukraine’s attack, it has not claimed any prior knowledge, but the denial is not convincing given the level of effort involved in the operation and the admitted transfer of intelligence in general to the Ukrainians.

Diplomacy Outlook 2025 - A Report

The Geostrata

Source Link

The withdrawal of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger from the Western African Economic Bloc (ECOWAS) and their refusal to transition back to constitutional rule initiates an informal Alliance of Sahel States. In the Horn of Africa, Proxy confrontations may escalate with a developing Trilateral Alignment between Somalia, Eritrea and Egypt to counter Ethiopia’s increasing influence over the Red Sea.

Security challenges stretch in the Indo-Pacific as India advances its hypersonic defence systems, North Korea strengthens its strategic alliance with Russia and tensions in the Taiwan Strait continue to put global trade in a challenging position.

North America’s geopolitical landscape depends on three critical elections– the 2024 United States Presidential election, the 2025 Canadian Federal election, and the 2024 Mexican General election. The Bi-Oceanic Corridor, set for completion in 2025 along with the EU-MERCOSUR Agreement, will likely transform logistics and boost trade.

Regional foreign policies may reshape Venezuela’s future under Trump’s presidency. The Middle East witnesses increasing tensions between Israel and Lebanon amidst the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, geography and resources may play a strategic role in fostering peace. The climate emergency, the unending war in Ukraine, and Trump’s plan to impose tariffs put the EU in a conundrum.

As these geopolitical developments unfold, the involvement of national and regional governments, multilateral organisations, private entities, humanitarian organisations and research and development institutions becomes fundamental in shaping outcomes and addressing challenges.

How Israeli spies and pilots crippled an Iranian counterstrike

Source Link

The U.S. and Israel were bracing for swift, fierce retaliation from Iran overnight.Thanks to intricately planned maneuvers by Israeli spies and pilots — and shock and disarray on the Iranian side — there was silence.

Zoom in: As it became clear Israel was about to attack, the commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' air force convened in a bunker to coordinate the response.But Israel knew that emergency protocol, and the location of the bunker. They destroyed it, killing the overall commander and the heads of the drone and air defense forces. "The fact that there was nobody to give the order neutralized an immediate Iranian response," an Israeli official said.

They were among the more than two dozen Iranian commanders targeted in a sprawling attack on Iran's military command-and-control. The heads of the IRGC, the Iranian military and Iran's emergency military headquarters were all eliminated in the opening salvo.

Another key target was Iran's air defense systems and radars. Israeli intelligence mapped their locations, and most were hit by the Israeli Air Force in the opening strike. That gave the IDF virtually unchallenged freedom of operation in Iran's skies.

Meanwhile on the ground, Israel's Mossad spy agency was conducting a series of covert sabotage operations deep inside Iran to take out air defenses and ballistic missile launchers.Hundreds of Mossad agents both inside Iran and back in headquarters were involved, including a special unit of Iranian operatives working for Mossad.

In central Iran, Mossad commando units had positioned guided weapons systems in open areas near Iranian surface-to-air missile launchers.

In another area inside Iran, Mossad covertly deployed weapon systems and sophisticated technologies hidden in vehicles. When the Israeli attack began, these weapons were launched and destroyed Iranian air defense targets.

Iran’s Attack on Israel was Enabled by North Korean Missile Technology and Advances

Bruce E. Bechtol

Source Link

While the attack was quite large, it was also ineffective. According to spokespersons for the U.S. and Israeli militaries, 99% of the projectiles launched at Israel failed to make it through.

Israeli and American missile defense worked very effectively, along with support from other allies, including Jordan.

From North Korea to Iran

Israel’s system of ballistic missile defense may be the best in the world. But of the roughly 120 ballistic missiles that Iran used, about 50% either failed to launch or crashed in flight.

Only half of Iran’s ballistic missiles flew the way they were supposed to, thus showing these systems are anything but well made. But where did the Iranians get the technology to assemble these long-range ballistic missile systems, however well or poorly they fared? The answer is, unquestionably, North Korea.

Based on pictures and descriptions from the region, many of the missiles used in the attack were what Tehran calls the Emad. This is a medium-range ballistic missile based on the Shahab-3, which itself is nothing more than a copy of North Korea’s NoDong missile. The Shahab-3 (NoDong) has a range of 1300–1500 kilometers, but the Emad has a reported range of about 1700 km, and its longer reach allows it to target Israel.

The North Koreans conducted a live test of the NoDong for Iran and Pakistan in 1993. Following the test, both Tehran and Islamabad ordered dozens of these missiles and their launchers. Later, at Tehran’s request, North Korea built a fabrication facility for the NoDong – now called the Shahab-3 in Iran. But the Iranians still needed technical support and parts for the missiles they were now indigenously producing.

AI, Power, And Responsibility: Understanding The Stakes In A Changing World – Speech

The Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon

Source Link

It’s a privilege to be here[2] with defense professionals, technologists, scholars, and strategic thinkers—each committed to shaping a secure and resilient global future. I extend my sincere thanks to Professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic, to IFIMES, and to the Global Academy for the Geo-Politico-Technological Futures for organizing this vital series of discussion on artificial intelligence and robotics—topics that increasingly defines the trajectory of our global civilisation: the understanding—and the implications—of Artificial Intelligence.

Having spent the better part of my career immersed in questions of national defence, strategy, and governance, I have often been confronted with new technologies that force us to recalibrate both our expectations and our responsibilities. From the Cold War’s nuclear stand-off to today’s digital battlefield, each generation faces its own version of transformative risk. In our time, that risk—and that promise—carries a name: Artificial Intelligence.

I. The Strategic Importance of Understanding AI

When I first entered public service, technology was already beginning to reshape military doctrine. Precision weaponry, network-centric warfare, unmanned systems—these were harbingers of a revolution in defence affairs. But Artificial Intelligence is different. It is not merely another instrument in our arsenal; it is a force multiplier, a decision-maker, and potentially, a policy-shaper in its own right.

AI systems can now interpret satellite images with greater accuracy than human analysts. They can autonomously monitor cyber threats, control drone swarms, and conduct real-time logistics coordination with minimal human oversight. In the future, they may be entrusted with decisions that bear lethal consequences. The strategic implications are profound, and they extend well beyond the battlefield.

But AI is not limited to defence. It is woven into our healthcare systems, financial institutions, transport networks, and increasingly, our democratic processes. In short, the domain of AI is the domain of governance itself.

India and Pakistan Aren’t Talking Enough

Anchal Vohra

Source Link

An Indian Border Security Force (BSF) soldier (2R) and a Pakistani Ranger perform during the Beating the Retreat ceremony at the India-Pakistan Wagah border post near Amritsar, India on August 1, 2022.An Indian Border Security Force (BSF) soldier (2R) and a Pakistani Ranger perform during the Beating the Retreat ceremony at the India-Pakistan Wagah border post near Amritsar, India on August 1, 2022. NARINDER NANU/AFP via Getty Images

In the aftermath of the recent fighting between India and Pakistan, an Indian delegation has been traveling the West’s capitals on a mission to build support against what it described as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Shashi Tharoor, a senior politician with the opposition Indian National Congress party, led the delegation to the United States, where it met with Vice President J.D. Vance.

Afterward, Tharoor said the U.S. continued to support India and dismissed any chance of talks with Pakistan until it stops supporting Pakistan-based armed groups with a history of attacks against India. New Delhi won’t talk to Pakistan “with a gun pointed to our head,” Tharoor said.