Indian Strategic Studies

18 June 2025

Israel Takes Action Against Iran – Analysis

Hudson Institute

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

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

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

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

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

The New Middle East War

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kian Sharifi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s Iran Strike: What’s Next?

Joshua Yaphe

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

Operation Rising Lion

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

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

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

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

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

Maya Carlin

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

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

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

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

Mamuka Tsereteli

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

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

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

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

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

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

PATRICK TUCKER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia aims to ride the BRICS to AI victory

IVANA STRADNER and EMILY HESTER

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

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

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

William F. Wechsler

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

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

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

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

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

This Is Israel’s War

Daniel McCarthy

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

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

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

Israel Has Struck. Now Trump Must Lead.

Andrew King

This morning, the world changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump is losing control of American foreign policy

Christopher S Chivvis

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

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

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

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

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

Has Israel Crossed the Rubicon?

Greg Priddy

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

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

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

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

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

Israel's Strikes On Iran Were Inevitable | Opinion

Ilan Berman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergence Of Warning Signs In The Global Financial System – Analysis

Anbound

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Same Old Fantasies Behind AI and New Technology

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

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

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

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

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

Houthis In Somalia: Friends With Technological Benefits? – Analysis

Karen Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Best Tanks on the Battlefield Fighting Right Now

TNI Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Tank Requirements

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

17 June 2025

Massive Stealth Flying Wing Emerges At Secretive Chinese Base

In an exclusive development regarding China’s rapidly accelerating next-generation air combat programs, we have just gotten our first glimpse of a very large, low-observable, flying-wing, long-endurance unmanned aircraft.

The image of the previously unseen aircraft sitting outside of an already intriguing hangar complex at an airfield notorious for advanced air combat programs comes to us from the Planet Labs archive. The image was taken on May 14, 2025, and just appeared in the database.

The photo shows China’s secretive test base near Malan in Xinjiang province, which is known to be on the leading edge of the country’s unmanned aircraft development efforts.

Specifically, the craft was parked outside of a sprawling new facility that was built very recently to the east of the base, connected to it by a very long taxiway leading to a security gate.PHOTO © 2025 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION

Construction of the installation began just over two years ago. The high-security site is very densely populated with hangars of various sizes. These include estimated (based on early construction satellite images) 70-meter, 50-meter, 20-meter, and 15-meter bays. The craft in question is sitting outside one of the largest bays. The low-slung, large hangars are reminiscent of the shelters for U.S. B-2 bombers at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri or infrastructure we see at the U.S. Air Force’s Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, associated with flying-wing aircraft. The smaller bays at Malan are a bit more of a puzzle.PHOTO © 2025 PLANET LABS INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRINTED BY PERMISSION

It wasn’t previously apparent what this facility was intended to do, but now it seems clearer that it may be a testing base for China’s next generation air combat ecosystem, which would include aircraft of multiple sizes — from the H-20 stealth bomber, to large stealthy flying wing drones, the tri-engined J-36, to the J-XDS fighter, and of course, smaller tactical drones.

‘Not rely on post-facto narrative building with delegations’: Brahma Chellaney says Israel’s military ops a striking contrast to India’s

Noted geostrategist Brahma Chellaney compared the military operations of both India and Israel, and pointed how, when it comes to using force – always the last resort – it must be guided by a clarity of thought. He also said that military operations should be based on decisive actions and not “post-facto narrative-building” through roadshows or delegations of lawmakers.

Chellaney’s post is a remark on India’s decision to send delegations to foreign countries to talk about the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor and the subsequent conflict between India and Pakistan. India targeted Pakistani air bases after which they reached out to New Delhi to talk about a possible ceasefire.

Nevertheless, Pakistan has been declaring its “victory” and how they destroyed many Indian jets, even though the evidence pointed otherwise.

“Israel’s population is just 10 million, while India has 1.4 billion people. Yet their latest military operations present a striking contrast. Israel decapitated Iran’s top military command through powerful preemptive strikes. In contrast, India launched its Operation Sindoor tentatively — after giving Pakistan 15 days’ advance notice. It initially targeted some terrorist camps but without first neutralising Pakistan’s air defences. That strategic oversight led to the loss of some Indian warplanes,” said Chellaney.

“Only then did the political leadership authorise the Air Force to strike Pakistani air defences and air bases. But just as the Indian military was gaining the upper hand, the operation was abruptly halted — only three days after it began,” he said. It was neither India nor Pakistan but US President Donald Trump who announced the ceasefire. He has, since, mentioned the US’ involvement to mediate multiple times – a claim that India refutes. India has said the ceasefire was agreed upon after both the neighbours had a talk.

Chellaney further stated, “Force should always be a last resort — but when used, it must be guided by strategic clarity. A military operation should aim for decisive results that speak for themselves — not rely on post-facto narrative-building through domestic roadshows or delegations of lawmakers dispatched abroad.”

Democracy Disfigured: India’s Political Devolution

Asim Ali

Nearly the entire opposition boycotted the consecration of the new Lok Sabha, or House of the People, dubbing it Modi’s “coronation.”

It was a familiar made-for-television spectacle, emblematic both of Modi’s leadership style as well as the state of Indian democracy.

The opposition’s boycott was prompted not just by the nakedly partisan tenor of the event but also a range of proximate grievances. These included the disqualification of several opposition leaders from the Lok Sabha and the bulldozing of controversial laws without debate.

“When the soul of democracy has been sucked out from the parliament, we find no value in a new building,” the joint opposition statement read.

Over the last decade, Modi has persistently trimmed the autonomy of every institution of representative democracy in India, subordinating them to a direct form of representation embodied in his personalistic leadership. The Modi government has zealously followed a distinctly autocratic checklist: arresting political opponents, including sitting chief ministers; weaponizing investigative and tax agencies; curbing dissent through sedition and anti-terror laws; cracking down on independent media and civil society organizations; and demonizing minorities.

Not even his own political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been spared from Modi’s scythe. Once known for its collegial leadership and well-defined organizational structure, the party has now been reduced to a corporate-style electoral machine yoked to the writ of its domineering leader. The inauguration of the new Parliament thus marked the ultimate distillation of Modi’s claim to embody popular sovereignty – a spectacle conveying the dissolution of a parliamentary system built on the notion of “we the people” in favor of a plebiscitary leader calling out “me the people.”

Inside Pakistan’s War on Baloch Students

Dilshad Baluch

Late one March night, a group of Baloch students were startled by a forceful knock on the door of their shared flat in Islamabad’s I-10 sector. A number of men in plain clothes entered without warning or warrants. One of them instructed the others: “Humiliate these Baloch students and torture them like this.”

The harassment in Islamabad had been escalating for months. “They come late at night, enter our flat without permission, and make those remarks right in front of us,” said one student, whose name has been withheld for security reasons. “They follow us constantly in their Vigo vehicles, the kind everyone recognizes as used by state agencies. Whether we go to university or just out for tea, they follow us the entire way.”

He described one incident where two friends were followed from a café: “As soon as they reached our flat, the Vigo came right up to the building, then turned around and left.”

These are not just rare incidents. Many Baloch students living in cities like Islamabad and across Punjab face constant harassment, racial profiling, and state-led intimidation. For them, going to university has become a continuous struggle to stay safe and continue their education.

A Targeted Minority: Repression of Baloch Students Across Pakistan

Resource-rich Balochistan is home to the Baloch people, who have endured decades of political exclusion, economic hardship, and violent crackdowns by the Pakistani state. While Balochistan is widely known for enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, far less attention is given to how this repression has extended beyond its borders into classrooms, hostels, and city streets across Pakistan.

In Punjab and Islamabad, the country’s academic and administrative centers, Baloch students face systematic targeting under the guise of national security. Accused of harboring anti-state views or links to Baloch armed organizations, they endure constant surveillance, racial profiling, public harassment, false charges, and threats of abduction.

Sri Lanka’s Minorities Struggle For Voice In Sinhala-Buddhist Dominated Politics – Analysis

P. K. Balachandran

Sri Lanka’s minority communities—Tamils, Muslims, and Malaiyaga Tamils—face persistent challenges in securing meaningful political representation within a system heavily influenced by the Sinhala-Buddhist majority, according to a report by the Minority Rights Group and Oxford Brookes University, led by Dr. Farah Mihlar. Despite experimenting with various strategies, these groups continue to grapple with systemic barriers, with effective representation remaining elusive, particularly for North-Eastern Tamils.

The report, Divided and Weakened: The Collapse of Minority Politics in Sri Lanka, highlights the structural disadvantages minorities face, whether their parties align with the government or remain in opposition. North-Eastern Tamils, who often advocate for federalism—a concept largely rejected by the Sinhalese majority—experience widespread disillusionment. In contrast, Muslims and Malaiyaga Tamils have achieved relatively greater success by adopting more flexible and pragmatic approaches, cooperating or confronting the majority based on specific issues.

Dr. Mihlar notes, “Minority politics in Sri Lanka is disintegrating, crushed by structural majoritarian nationalism and stunted by a lack of vision, identity, and leadership within minority parties.” A former Tamil militant, who transitioned to an elected MP in 1989, expressed frustration, stating, “No one gained by it; not a single MP has achieved anything. We have no other solution, we have no option, we have to do this politics.”

Majoritarian Nationalism and Political Marginalization

Since independence, majoritarian nationalism, embedded in state institutions like the military and civil service, has curtailed the effectiveness of minority representatives. This was particularly pronounced during the presidencies of Mahinda Rajapaksa (2005–2015) and Gotabaya Rajapaksa (2019–2022), periods marked by heightened Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism. The report alleges that strategies such as co-opting minority MPs, sowing division within their parties, and restricting their ability to serve their communities were employed to undermine minority representation.

Mainland China scientists build electronic war game for Taiwan and nearby waters

Stephen Chen

A PLA mobile electronic warfare platform deployed southeast of Taiwan activates its emitter, shattering the electromagnetic silence with powerful pulses, which are initially blocked by the island’s towering central mountain range.

But while the key eastern military bases are unaffected at first, gradually the signals navigate the complex terrain, reflecting like mirrors off slopes and scattering across rough surfaces.

Eventually, they cross the peaks to blanket the entire island and its surrounding waters. Signals in parts of eastern Taiwan could rival the strength of those in the west. Even distant Taipei detects disturbances, though some shielded valleys remain signal-free – potential hideouts that require vigilance.

This war game scenario is played out in an ultra-detailed simulation that for the first time covers a vast theatre spanning Taiwan and adjacent seas, modelling intricate landforms with nanosecond-level precision.

The simulation was created by an electromagnetic battlespace emulator built by a team of researchers led by professor Shao Shihai from the University of Electronic Science and Technology in Chengdu, the capital of the southwestern province of Sichuan.

“This method significantly improves computational speed while maintaining precision and high time-delay resolution,” they wrote in a peer-reviewed paper published by the Chinese-language Journal of Electronics & Information Technology in March.

“[It] fulfils the computational requirements for channel modelling in large-scale battlefield environments,” they added.

Building a New Market to Counter Chinese Mineral Market Manipulation

Gracelin Baskaran

With China recently imposing export restrictions on rare earth elements—leading to U.S. automakers to halt production due to supply shortages—one of the most urgent issues is how to establish reliable Western supplies of essential critical minerals. A major challenge to achieving mineral security is China’s manipulation of global markets, whereby Chinese companies flood the market with excess supply, driving prices down to levels that force mining operations in countries like the United States and Australia to shut down. This approach has not only exposed the United States and its allies to heightened supply vulnerabilities but also made it difficult for them to compete with China under current market conditions:Between May 2022 and May 2025, cobalt prices fell 59.5 percent from $82,000 per ton to $33,250 per ton. In 2023, Jervois opened the United States’ only cobalt mine in Idaho but was forced to close it within the same year due to collapsing prices.

Nickel prices experienced a dramatic decline of 73.1 percent, from $48,241 per ton in March 2022 to $13,847 per ton in May 2025. During this period, BHP closed its Nickel West operations and West Musgrave project in Australia, and Glencore shuttered its Koniambo Nickel SAS facility in New Caledonia, citing unprofitability. Today, Chinese firms in Indonesia hold a de facto monopoly.

Global lithium prices have fallen from 86.8 percent from $68,114 in December 2022 to below $10,000 by June 2025.

Prices for neodymium-praseodymium oxide—the principal rare earth component in neodymium-iron-boron magnets—have fallen below $60 per kilogram. If prices stay below $60 per kilogram through 2030, approximately half of the projected supply originating outside of China is expected to become economically unviable. In fact, at this price point, only eight rare earth projects beyond China are expected to break even on direct production costs.

There is no sign that China will end its market manipulation. It is expected to continue leveraging its dominance to influence prices, restrict supply, and squeeze competitors, all of which undermine initiatives to diversify supply chains and ensure access to critical minerals. Adding to this challenge, projects outside China often need to promise higher investment returns to attract financing, whereas large Chinese state-owned companies can sustain operations at much lower—or even negative—profit margins.

Behind The Smiles In London: The Real Test Of US-China Diplomacy Begins Now – OpEd

Dr. Imran Khalid

“We made a great deal with China. We’re very happy with it.” So declared President Donald Trump in his familiar tone of triumphant ambiguity on June 11, fresh off what was touted as a breakthrough agreement to restore a trade truce between the United States and China. But if history has taught us anything, it is that “done deals” in the Trumpian lexicon tend to be either dangerously fragile or conveniently fungible.

The latest accord, emerging from two days of intense talks in London, follows an alarming spiral in trade tensions that had once again threatened to upend global markets and rekindle the tit-for-tat tariff warfare that haunted the latter years of Trump’s first term. According to Trump, China has committed to lifting its restrictions on the export of rare earths – materials critical to the global technology and defense sectors – while the U.S. has agreed to a calibrated rollback of punitive measures, including the threatened revocation of visas for Chinese students.

As ever, the devil is not just in the details, but in their implementation. Much like the May Geneva agreement that this deal purports to reinforce, the London framework is conditional, tentative, and, crucially, subject to “final approval” by both President Trump and President Xi Jinping. That qualifier alone renders the euphoria premature.

Still, to be charitable, the very fact that Washington and Beijing are speaking the language of dialogue rather than confrontation is an encouraging sign. Following a phone call between the two leaders earlier this month, there appears to be a renewed willingness – albeit under duress – to keep diplomacy afloat. For a world economy battered by uncertainty, this resumption of talks is, if nothing else, a stabilizing force.

Yet, Trump’s boastful framing – that the U.S. walks away with a 55% tariff shield while China gets 10% – betrays a zero-sum worldview that continues to inform his trade doctrine. The truth, however, is far less tidy. Tariffs have proved to be a double-edged sword, inflicting damage on American consumers, industries, and allies as much as they have squeezed Chinese exports. The World Bank’s recent downward revision of global growth forecasts points to tariffs and unpredictability as “significant headwinds,” underlining the global costs of such brinkmanship.

Rare Earth, Raw Power: How China Plays the Carrot and Stick Game of the Century

Xinyue Hu and Meng Kit Tang

Just as oil drove geopolitical tensions in the 20th century, rare earth elements could shape the rivalries of the 21st. These 17 metals – including the 15 lanthanides, plus scandium and yttrium – are essential to modern technologies, from smartphones and electric vehicles to wind turbines, radar systems, and fighter jets. They are the key enablers of the advanced technologies and military capabilities that underpin modern global power.

China accounts for approximately 60 percent of global rare earth raw material production, processes about 85 percent of the world’s output, and manufactures nearly 90 percent of the world’s rare earth magnets. It controls nearly all the refining capacity for heavy rare earth elements such as dysprosium and terbium, which are essential for high-performance magnets.

China dominates this sector not by chance, but thanks to a strategic effort spanning decades. Despite being a latecomer, China steadily overtook the United States. In the 1980s, the U.S. led rare earth production, primarily through the Mountain Pass mine in California. However, strict environmental regulations increased costs, leading to mine closures by the early 2000s. China capitalized on this opportunity by leveraging its relatively lax environmental regulations and extensive state subsidies, reducing its production costs and eventually surpassed the U.S.

By 2025, Beijing is more openly leveraging its control over rare earths, using them both as a stick to pressure geostrategic rivals like the U.S. and as a carrot to incentivize cooperation with states such as Malaysia.

China’s Geopolitical Playbook: Carrots and Sticks

China uses a two-pronged strategy to influence power politics, combining rewards and pressure in what is often called a “carrot and stick” approach. It offers technology transfers and access to resources to countries with relatively stable ties to Beijing, while enforcing export controls and other restrictions on its geostrategic competitors. Using rare earths to advance its geostrategic interests has proven to be relatively effective for China.

Fighting for Information: A Theory of Tactics for the Next Army

Benjamin Jensen

Next Army is a collaborative series by CSIS Futures Lab and the Modern War Institute launched in honor of the U.S. Army’s 250th birthday and the Army Transformation Initiative (ATI). The commentaries explore how emerging technologies, organizational reforms, and major shifts in the strategic environment will shape the force of 2040 and beyond.

In the future, the U.S. Army will dominate the air littorals through manned-unmanned teaming, algorithmic targeting, and distributed reconnaissance networks designed to win the fight for information and regain tempo in a contested battlespace.

The U.S. Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) should be anchored in a simple yet powerful idea: Whoever wins the fight for information wins the fight overall. Future combat won’t be about massing formations to penetrate defense lines—it will be about dislocating adversaries through sensor dominance, deception, and speed of decision. As the Army considers major cuts to air cavalry squadrons and legacy aviation elements, it must resist the urge to restructure without first reimagining how air-ground, manned-unmanned teams win the future fight for information. Along these lines, the Army should pair upgraded attack helicopters like AH-64s with enhanced capabilities like AESA radar, runway-independent armed drones like the Gray Eagle STOL, and AI-enabled systems like TITAN (Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node) to achieve decision advantage in the most contested part of the battlespace: the air littorals. To counter unmanned aerial systems (UAS), this modern day skirmisher force will need novel solutions, such as cannon-based air defenses, built for speed, flexibility, and fungibility.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)