Security & Defense - Atlantic Council

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Donald Trump’s talk of peace through strength succeeded in generating considerable optimism during the early months of 2025, but it is now time to acknowledge that this was largely based on wishful thinking. Since Trump returned to the White House, the Russians have significantly escalated their air war against Ukraine’s civilian population. On the battlefield, Putin’s troops are now engaged in the early stages of what promises to be a major summer offensive. Meanwhile, Kremlin officials continue make maximalist demands at the negotiating table that no Ukrainian government could accept. These are not the actions of a country seeking a pathway to peace.

In both words and deeds, Putin is sending unambiguous signals that he has no interest whatsoever in ending his invasion and remains determined to achieve the complete subjugation of Ukraine. This uncompromising stance will not change unless Western leaders can convince Putin that the most likely alternative to a negotiated peace is not an historic Russian triumph but a disastrous Russian defeat.

The steps needed to bring about this change and create the conditions to end the war are no secret. Sanctions measures against Russia must be tightened and expanded to starve the Kremlin war machine of funding and weaken the domestic foundations of Putin’s regime. Countries that currently help Moscow bypass international sanctions must be targeted with far greater vigor. In parallel, Western military aid to Ukraine must be dramatically increased, with an emphasis on providing long-range weapons and financing Ukraine’s rapidly growing domestic defense industry.

All this will require a degree of political will that is currently lacking. It would also be expensive. Indeed, during this week’s G7 summit, Trump balked at the idea of imposing new sanctions, saying they would “cost us a lot of money.” This is dangerously shortsighted. Trump and other G7 leaders need to urgently recognize that if Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, the cost of stopping him will skyrocket.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

In parallel, wartime Ukraine has continued to make progress in combating corruption. When Russia’s invasion of Ukraine first began in 2014, Ukraine was ranked 142 of 180 countries in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index. In the most recent edition, Ukraine had climbed to the 105 position.

Rising Ukrainian patriotism has helped fuel this progress in the fight against corruption. EU accession demands and IMF conditions have been equally important. Ukraine has gone through eight quarterly reviews of its four-year IMF program. It has done so on time and with flying colors. The same has been true of each EU assessment.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Looking ahead, three critical factors are necessary for wartime Ukraine’s future economic progress. First of all, Ukraine needs about $42 billion a year in external budget financing, or just over 20 percent of annual GDP, to finance its budget deficit. The country did not receive sufficient financing in 2022 because EU partners failed to deliver promised sums. This drove up Ukraine’s inflation rate to 27 percent at the end of 2022. The Ukrainian budget was fully financed in 2023 and 2024, driving down inflation to 5 percent. The budget will be fully financed this year.

The second factor is maritime trade via Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Shipping from Odesa and neighboring Ukrainian ports to global markets has been almost unimpeded since September 2023 after Ukraine took out much of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The vast majority of Ukraine’s exports are commodities such as agricultural goods, steel, and iron ore, which are only profitable with cheap naval transportation, so keeping sea lanes open is vital.

The third crucial factor for wartime Ukraine’s economic prospects is a steady supply of electricity. Russian bombing of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure disrupted the power supply significantly in 2024, which was one of the main reasons for the country’s deteriorating economic performance.

Ukraine’s economic position looks set to worsen this year. In the first four months of 2025, economic growth was only 1.1 percent, while inflation had risen to 15.9 percent by May. The main cause of rising inflation is a shortage of labor. The national bank will presumably need to hike its current interest rate of 15.5 percent, which will further depress growth. After three years of war, Ukraine’s economy is showing increasing signs of exhaustion. The country has entered stagflation, which is to be expected.

Eurasia Center events

Vice President and Senior Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s current economic situation is surprisingly similar to Ukraine’s, although almost all trade between Russia and Ukraine has ceased. After two years of around 4 percent economic growth in 2023 and 2024, Russia is expecting growth of merely 1.5 percent this year, while official inflation is 10 percent. Since October 2024, the Central Bank of Russia has maintained an interest rate of 21 percent while complaining about stagflation.

The Russian and Ukrainian economies are both suffering from their extreme focus on the military sector. Including Western support, Ukraine’s military expenditure amounts to about $100 billion a year, which is no less than 50 percent of Ukraine’s GDP, with 30 percent coming from the Ukrainian budget in 2024. Meanwhile, Russia’s 2025 military expenditure is supposed to be $170 billion or 8 percent of GDP. Unlike the Ukrainians, the Russians complain about the scale of military spending. This makes sense. The Ukrainians are fighting an existential war, while Russia’s war is only existential for Putin.

Contrary to common perceptions, Russia does not have an overwhelming advantage over Ukraine in terms of military expenditure or supplies. Russia does spend significantly more than Ukraine, but much of this is in reality stolen by politicians, generals, and Putin’s friends. Furthermore, Western sanctions impede the Russian military’s ability to innovate. In contrast, Ukraine benefits from innovation because its economy is so much freer, with hundreds of startups thriving in areas such as drone production.

Russia is now entering a fiscal crunch. Its federal expenditures in 2024 amounted to 20 percent of GDP and are likely to stay at that level in 2025, of which 41 percent goes to military and security. However, the Kremlin has financed its budget deficit of about 2 percent of GDP with its national welfare fund, which is expected to run out by the end of the current year. As a result, Russia will likely be forced to reduce its public expenditures by one-tenth.

Low oil prices could add considerably to Russia’s mounting economic woes and force a further reduction in the country’s public expenditures. However, Israel’s attack on Iran may now help Putin to stay financially afloat by driving the price of oil higher.

Economically, this is a balanced war of attrition at present. Ukraine’s Western partners have the potential to turn the tables on Russia if they choose to do so. Ukraine has successfully built up a major innovative arms industry. What is missing is not arms but funds. The West needs to double Ukraine’s military budget from today’s annual total of $100 billion to $200 billion. They can do this without using their own funds if they agree to seize approximately $200 billion in frozen Russian assets currently held in Euroclear Bank in Belgium. This could enable Ukraine to outspend Russia and achieve victory through a combination of more firepower, greater technology, and superior morale.

Anders Åslund is the author of “Russia’s Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.”

Speakers

Helima Croft
Board Director, Atlantic Council; Managing Director and Global Head of Commodity Strategy and MENA Research, RBC Capital Markets

Brett McGurk
Distinguished Fellow, N7 Initiative, Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs, Atlantic Council

Moderator

William F. Wechsler
Senior Director, Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs, Atlantic Council

Event transcript

Uncorrected transcript: Check against delivery

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Thank you for—once again, for everyone being here, being part of this discussion. It’s quite important. And it comes at, of course, an absolutely critical moment for those of us who’ve spent our lives caring about the geopolitics and stability/security of the Middle East.

So we’re going to have a thirty-minute discussion here with two of the most well-positioned people to give us their views on what’s going on now and what we should expect.

From my own point of view, I just want to lead off by saying I see four real scenarios going forward: a great scenario, a good scenario, a bad scenario, and a terrible scenario. The great one is that the military objectives in the current campaign are met and the Iranian regime is not able to pose the kind of existential threat to the region that it—of the Iranian people taking matters into their own hands. A good scenario is that the Iranian regime comes back to the Trump administration and wants to do a deal on eliminating their enrichment of their nuclear program. A bad scenario is the military objectives are not met and Iran goes nuclear. And a terrible one is that the region is in war, which could involve the United States.

So the two people that I have here discuss are Brett McGurk, who has joined the Atlantic Council recently as a distinguished fellow working our Middle East Programs and our N7 Initiative, a joint partnership of the Atlantic Council and Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation; and Helima Croft, the head of commodities at RBC Global and the head of the Middle East there as well.

We’re going to talk about security and energy issues here today. Let me start with you, Brett. Tell us what—you know, as we sit here the people in the Trump administration are gathering at some point today in the Situation Room to talk about what the options are for the United States to advance the good scenarios I talked about and minimize the risk of the lower scenarios. You’ve spent more time in that Situation Room than anybody I know talking about these issues. What would you be telling the president today?

BRETT MCGURK: Well—is this working? OK. Well, thank you, and congratulations, Atlantic Council, Landon, and everyone setting this up, and it’s great to hear from Dr. Sultan this morning. And, Fred, great to see you.

I caveat comments on what’s happening to say if anyone tells you they know exactly where this is heading or making kind of bold predictions they don’t know what they’re talking about. This is truly a completely unprecedented situation.

It flows out of the events of October 7th. I’m happy to kind of talk about the broader strategic context but you asked a specific question so let me get to it. If I was in the Situation Room right now I think, from the White House perspective, we have three immediate objectives.

Number one, obviously, we want to protect Americans and we want to help defend Israel. That is, like, first priority. So making sure we’re surging defense interceptors, everything. I’ve dealt with that an awful lot in the last year when I was in the White House. That’s number one.

Number two, try to contain this to Israel and Iran. Avoid a broader regional escalation. I think that’s actually a very achievable objective. So far I think that’s going fairly well—something we dealt with every day, every hour, from October 7th on.

I don’t know how many predictions of uncontrollable regional war there have been since October 7th. There has not been an uncontrollable regional war because of what the United States has done, frankly, consistently day by day, hour by hour, month by month.

Number three, I think you want to be working with the Israelis to ensure a focus on their declared objectives and avoid a mission creep scenario. Their declared objectives are dismantlement of the nuclear program and the missile program.

So those are kind of the three immediate objectives. But on the third one it’s very important because we know an awful lot about this. The Iran nuclear program has been a vexing challenge across administrations and the Rubicon here has been crossed, and I think we’ll mention that one of the worst outcomes would be this kind of ends with the main enrichment facility in Fordow intact.

And let me say a little bit about that because there’s a lot of focus about what is Israel doing, why. But Iran has made a series of fateful strategic miscalculations from October 7th on. It decided after October 7th to basically support a multifront war against Israel, and I lived through this and watched the whole thing.

They turned on Hezbollah to open a northern front. They turned on the Houthis to open a southern front. They supplied the militias in Iraq and Syria to open additional fronts. They directly attacked Israel twice in April and October. That is—October 7th miscalculations.

What happened? Hezbollah was basically knocked out. You have a new government in Lebanon. The Assad regime collapsed. You have a new government in Syria. We had a ceasefire in Gaza and hostages coming out. I’m hopeful we can still get back to a ceasefire there. You had the militias in Iraq declaring a ceasefire, relations in the Gulf very strong, and Iran in its weakest position since October 7th. So that’s kind of where things were left.

On the nuclear side, Iran continued to escalate its program. And just last week the IAEA came out with its comprehensive report that was asked for last year and found flagrant—what was their word?—egregious failure of Iran to live up to its nuclear commitments and focused a lot on Fordow.

In Fordow right now, buried into a mountain, there are ten cascades of very advanced IR-6 centrifuges. That cannot be left intact. And I think the way the White House sees this, and the policy right now as I read it, is the White House offered a deal to Iran about six weeks ago. I don’t know every detail. It’s described as a very fair deal. But that would basically give the world confidence that Iran is not and will not ever move towards a nuclear weapon.

And Iran not only did not really respond to that. It actually escalated its nuclear program in the face of this, including just last week saying they’re going to feed fuel into the cascades in Fordow and actually open a new underground enrichment facility. So Iran has just made these series of miscalculations. And I used to lead this channel in Oman with the Iranians and told them repeatedly, if you keep this up, it’s inevitable, inevitable, somebody will take care of this problem. And that’s kind of where we are.

So right now Iran has a choice. I mean, Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister of Iran, can call Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s envoy, and say, you know, I kind of—I looked at the offer you put down six weeks ago. Actually, it’s pretty good. I think we’re going to take it. And I think this crisis would be over. Or they could not do that, looking at the possibility of a US strike on Fordow. I’m just saying that as an analyst.

But in any case, to Will’s four scenarios, this has to end without Iran’s nuclear-enrichment program intact. And hopefully that can end diplomatically. That option is still available. There’s still an off-ramp. Or the military campaign is now joined. The Israelis have a lot of options. And the US has a big option when it comes to Fordow.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Thank you very much for that, Brett.

Helima, I want to talk—to turn to the energy markets. The energy markets have—don’t seem to have built in the risk that—of some of the scenarios that—of some of the scenarios that I and Brett were talking about. Can you help us understand why that is, what Iran could do that would change the markets’ views, and then how OPEC and others would react and the United States would react to that?

HELIMA CROFT: Great. Thank you so much. And Fred, thank you so much for convening us again. And Dr. Sultan, what an extraordinary open to the conference today.

As you mentioned, Will, I think the market is very sanguine about the risks entailed in any type of escalation in the Middle East at this moment. I think a lot of it goes back to the Russia-Ukraine war. There had been this expectation right away—remember what oil prices did right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We shot up. We were running to $130. Analysts were talking about potentially $200-a-barrel price of oil. There was an expectation that we could see three million barrels of Russian oil off the market.

And when that did not materialize, I think a lot of market participants were like, we have overplayed this risk. A number of prominent investors were burned betting on a Russian supply disruption. And they were like, I’m no longer going to price in risk of disruption. You can tell me about it, but I want to see it before I start pricing this in. And we have a situation right now in the market where we are well-supplied. You know, US production has been strong. Production out of countries like the United Arab Emirates, the investments that ADNOC has made in expanding spare capacity, means that we have ample supply on the market right now.

But the question is, Will, and we talked about this, if we were to see even a repeat of what we saw in 2019, if we saw attacks on tankers—remember, in 2019, after we reimposed maximum-pressure sanctions in May, we did have tankers hit off the coast of Fujairah. They were not sunk, but they were damaged. We had drone attacks on key pipelines over that summer, including the east-west pipeline. And then in September we had the attack on Abqaiq, the world’s largest oil-processing facility.

And to some extent because that did not yield sustained disruption—and, well, we talked about that. You know, was this a ceiling of Iran’s disruptive capabilities in 2019? Could they have done far more damage to Abqaiq if they had chosen to do so? But a lot of market participants were, like, we’ve seen the worst out of this. And if it did not yield a sustained disruption in 2019 when Abqaiq was hit, I really don’t need to be worried about it now unless it actually happens.

Now, people would say, the risk is potentially low. I’ve heard many experts say the risk of this spilling over into energy is low. But it’s not zero. And if you did have a situation—even last night—where’s my friend Amena Bakr? We were back and forth, you know, on our, you know, texts last night, because we had two tankers or three tankers on fire last night. And our immediate concern was, is this a repeat of 2019? Have those tankers been struck. Is Iran seeking to internationalize the cost of this conflict? Now it turns out there was a collision. It does not look like they were actually struck by a missile or a mine. But the concern was there right away.

So if we were to see some type of incident—we’ve already seen domestic energy infrastructure targeted. We’ve already seen South Pars struck. We’ve seen attacks on the important Haifa Refinery in Israel. We’ve had oil depots struck in Iran. All domestic. All kind of warning shots. But, again, I don’t think the market would be prepared for the export infrastructure being struck. And, again, that may never happen. And the Iranians may judge that the cost of doing so is too high. The Israelis may decide not in their interest to defund Iran by attacking Kharg Island, which would take off 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

But, again, the risk isn’t zero. And if you were to have something—even though we’re sitting at seventy-five dollars today—if you were to have just a repeat of anything we saw in 2019, we would move materially higher. Now, the question about OPEC, I don’t think OPEC is looking to add barrels to the market this time because of this situation. They are already unwinding a voluntary cut. We expect more rolling OPEC barrels on the market. But OPEC has made it pretty clear, they’re not going to fill a gap in the market until one emerges. So I would not expect, for example, a preemptive surge of a million-plus barrels, unless we see clear evidence of a supply disruption.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Thank you very much. So the implications of that is, because the risk isn’t built into the markets today, if we do have this, the market impact would be much larger than it would be. And it would be a—would be a shock.

HELIMA CROFT: I think the market is taking it as a—I think energy markets—based on everything Brett said, like, you know, we’ve had this war in the Middle East that has not disrupted energy supplies to date. Again, the clearest one was what happened with Russia [and] Ukraine, where people were really thinking, are we going to do to Russia what we did to Iran in terms of secondary sanctions? I mean, we did a lot of work, though, to prevent a Russian disruption. Again, massive releases from the SPR, carveouts in terms of energy sanctions. We did price caps after the Europeans went forward with the sixth package of sanctions, which banned the import of seaborne oil into Europe and did a services ban. There was an active effort by the White House to ensure that the market would be well supplied. So—but I think the message or the takeaway, from many market participants is, call me when there is a disruption. You tell me there’s a lot of risk, but I’m waiting to see it materialize.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Thank you very much for that.

Brett, I want to come back to you. You know, the issue, as you alluded to, Fordow, Fordow, Fordow. That’s the question. That is—that’s what’s going to be on the mind of President Trump. You served President Trump in his—in his first term. You’ve been in the Oval Office with him. He’s made absolutely clear over a long period of time that he doesn’t want a war with Iran. What’s different now? What would cause him, in your mind, to make that decision? And what are ways that events could unfold that would make it more likely?

BRETT MCGURK: I’d say, first, look, nobody wants—I think no president wants to order a military strike anywhere, frankly. I mean, I’ve been around four presidents. It’s, like, the most difficult decision. And anybody with the experience over the last twenty years, and if you spend time in Iraq like I did and others, like, you better go at such a decision with heady analysis, prudence, calculation, thinking through every unintended consequence.

The issue with Fordow—and I’m just going to—a lot of you know this. But it was a secret underground facility found by intelligence, announced to the world in 2009. The JCPOA had a lot of problems. It did say no enrichment at Fordow until 2030. After the JCPOA—US left the JCPOA, Iran started installing centrifuges in Fordow. And they eventually put in ten cascades of the IR-6s, which are the most advanced. And they started enriching to 60 percent uranium grade, which can spin up very fast to weapons grade. And you just read the IAEA report from last week.

This is a huge national security challenge. And I think the hope was that it could be dealt with through a deal. I mean, frankly, we in the—in the Biden administration had worked on this knowing that this year, 2025, is the year to deal with this problem, because there’s a deadline. The deadline, again, under the JCPOA, a provision its critics like is called snapback. Snapback means any member of that deal who’s still a member, basically France and the UK, can go to the UN Security Council and say, all international sanctions on Iran snapback. And they can do that until October of this year, when that expires under the JCPOA. So this is always the year to deal with this problem. And the hope, again, still, is that it can be dealt with diplomatically.

Now, the military option has had massive risk to it. Some of them—and being around this issue over the years I’m not revealing anything that’s not known—Hezbollah. Hezbollah had 150,000 to 200,000 missiles and rockets hanging over Israel. Any military strike into Iran, you risk Hezbollah unleashing those missiles on Israel. No longer a threat. Very significant. Hezbollah, even after the start of Israel’s military operation, has said: We want nothing to do with this. Second, air defense. Iran has pretty good air defense. Russian air defense systems, S-300s. There’s the risk of a pilot being taken down. That’s a big risk. That’s no longer there. Israel has complete air supremacy over Iran, which is an extraordinary thing. And that changes the entire calculation. Third, Iran has what it has. It has proxies. It has terrorism. It has missiles and rockets. And we know all that.

So the window of availability for a military option is now very open. And then how do you use that? Do you use that to try to get a deal, which I can actually see the administration doing? And if you say, if that—if that negotiation fails, then we have to be prepared to actually do the strike. And I think you do have to back it up. And around town if you say that, it’s, like, well, that means you’re going to lead. Look what happened in the Iraq War. This is not an Iraq War scenario. We invaded Iraq in 2003 with 130,000 troops, very small force, to overthrow a government and install an entirely new system.

I mean, that—talk about ends and means gap and unintended consequences? This is—and I’m not discounting the seriousness of this—but this is a military operation that has been planned, trained on, for, like, going back ten or fifteen years. And so it is available to the president. And the Pentagon’s job is to make it available and discuss it, if the president chooses to do it. And right now, it’s available as a backstop to diplomacy. And, again, anyone talking to Abbas Araghchi, he should call Steve Witkoff tomorrow, or right now, and say, you know what? I re-looked at the deal you put down. It’s pretty good. Let’s actually get together and do it. That’s the way out of this.

And being through the crisis since October 7th, I mean, this—sometimes it’s—I can get—frustrated is not the right word. But there are ways out of these problems. And right now, there could be a—we want a ceasefire in Gaza. Ceasefire in Gaza, if Hamas releases ten hostages, you have a sixty-day ceasefire in Gaza. Israel signed up to that. The US has signed up to it. It’s there. Iran right now—this crisis can end if Iran accepts the deal on the table. Or, I think, the military option becomes very viable.

And given where we are, the worst case here would be to leave Iran with that Fordow and ten cascades intact. So it’s a deal or it’s a military strike. I mean, I just—I think that is where we’re heading, and the events over the last twenty-four hours, I think, made that pretty clear. And that’s probably being discussed right down the street right now.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: You know, I’ve been briefed that we got about—that Iran at the current op tempo and the current projections of Israeli taking launchers off the battlefield that there’s about a—about a week, at least, more runway of these current level of operations continue. Of course, Iran also has by my count about three thousand short-range weapons that don’t threaten Israel but threaten our friends in the Gulf if things get—things get a lot worse.

My question to you, Helima, is in the scenario that Brett was just talking about, about the United States taking a strike on the—on the nuclear facility in Fordow, what’s that implication to the energy markets? And then what does the US do if the energy markets go a little haywire?

HELIMA CROFT: Well, I mean, certainly I think that, you know, US action against Fordow you would see, you know, a little pop in prices. But again, I think given the sort of bias of the market—I would say the recency bias of the market to say if it’s not an energy facility let’s take a pause, I think the real question would be in an endgame scenario for the Iranian government, again, A, what would come after—we talk about regime change, but who’s going to emerge to run that country? But the concern would be, I think, from the people who watch energy markets, who have spent time in the Middle East, who have been to places right after attacks have happened is, would you see proxy groups?

Like, would you see potentially risk to—we’ve talked about Straits of Hormuz, but I always think about, like, risks to Basra. I think about the risk to Iraq’s four-million-plus production because of Iranian-backed militias that operate very close to those facilities. So we would be watching, you know, what would happen in terms of, obviously, tankers. We would look to what would happen to—who are—where is the sort of soft security underbelly in terms of the energy system in the Middle East? And again, I would be concerned about risks to Iraq. I’d be concerned about risks to other countries’ energy facilities where they may not have taken the necessary steps to fortify those facilities.

So I don’t think the risk is—I do not think it is tail risk in a regime that feels its days are numbered, that they are not going to at least try to impose economic cost on the West and the rest of the world.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Well, thank you very much.

In just the brief amount of time that we have left, let me—let me ask each of you to leave us with a thought that we haven’t talked about and, frankly, if it’s possible, that you think most people aren’t talking about enough. Like, what should we be thinking about that most people aren’t? Let me start with you, Brett.

BRETT MCGURK: Man. Right now I think what we’re all thinking about is what we should be thinking about, which is what is going to happen in the next week. And it is—you talk about a decisive historical period; we’ve living in it. We’re living in it.

And I—and I think the potential for a Middle East—I’m looking at a lot of friends here in the audience—the potential for this region is just enormous. It is enormous. I though the president’s trip was the right thing to do, very successful. What’s happening in UAE is extraordinary, Saudi Arabia, throughout the Gulf—everything that was just talked about in this panel.

And Iran has been a huge problem in this region for decades. And what has happened to Hezbollah and Iranian networks and Iran since October 7th sets conditions for a much more peaceful, integrated Middle East that we all want. And Iran is a spoiler to that; there’s just no question about it. So what’s going to happen here in the next week, I think, or so is potentially quite decisive.

And if we were here two years ago, and the question was hypothetically what if Israel launches a massive air attack on Iran, like, tomorrow—what would happen—I think Helima would have said it’s going to be all-out Middle East war, and energy markets, and everything else you can imagine. And actually, it’s happening right now. Israel controls the skies of Iran.

I mean, this is like—you know, and I just have to say I am proud of what the United States of America has done since October 7th, not without controversy. And these are hard calls, and they should be scrutinized. But I am proud of what we have done to reduce the risks of an all-out Middle East conflict, to significantly weaken Iran and all of these networks that threaten so many people, and to set the conditions for a far more peaceful, prosperous, integrated Middle East region.

With that said, there are going to be spoilers around and terrorist groups around and extremists around, many of them funded and supported by Iran. But an Iran without the sword of Damocles of a nuclear-threshold state is a much different problem. And here we are with potential to actually resolve that, at least for a significant period of time.

And I will just finish. I hope—I hope Iran finds a way to take a deal, the deal that the US has put on the table. And if not, I think there’s no other way.

So I have to answer that question, Will, by what should we be thinking about? It’s what’s happening right now. I don’t know what else—at least that’s what I’m thinking about.

HELIMA CROFT: I will be super fast.

To echo what you pointed out about the enormous progress that we’ve seen in the Middle East—I mean, it started by the UAE with the incredible economic transformation and diversification program. I mean, Dr. Sultan, I think your portfolio speaks to everything you do in that country, just even beyond energy. And you look at the other countries, Saudi Arabia. You think about what Kuwait is trying to do, taking enormous steps to diversify their economies, to future-proof their societies. And it’s predicated on a stable security environment.

And so I do think that we should be sanguine about what’s at stake if we do not find a solution that enables, you know, a stable, prosperous Middle East. And having a stable security environment is so important for the millions of young people in the region whose futures really rest on everything that these governments are trying to undertake.

WILLIAM F. WECHSLER: Thank you very much. I think you actually hit on what I was hoping you would hit on, which is not only the risks of the region but the potential of the region is what we also need to be thinking about deeply right now.

With that, I want to say thank you very much to our panelists here for a really fascinating discussion on the issues of the day. Thank you all for listening to us.

Watch the full event

The post The energy risks of escalation in the Middle East, according to Brett McGurk and Helima Croft appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Why Hezbollah is unlikely to engage in the Israel-Iran war—for now

David Daoud — Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:54:12 +0000

Israel’s inevitable strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has finally occurred. The Israelis on Friday launched extensive, non-stop airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites, coupled with assassinations of Tehran’s senior-most officers and nuclear scientists. Iran had built up Hezbollah’s massive arsenal to deter precisely such an Israeli action and launch the first retaliatory strikes if it nevertheless occurred. Yet, as wave after wave of Israeli jets continue to strike Iran, Israel’s northern border remains quiet—underscoring the significant damage the Lebanese-based group absorbed during its own recent war with Israel.

This quiet is likely to continue. Tehran is unlikely to order Hezbollah, in its current battered state, to enter the fray unless Iran feels its regime is in existential danger.

So far, Hezbollah has sufficed with tame condemnations of the Israeli strikes—unusual for the typically verbally bellicose group. In one instance, an anonymous alleged official said Hezbollah “will not initiate its own attack” against Israel. Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s more passionate official statements expressed solidarity with Iran, but fell far short of declaring hostilities.

Secretary-General Naim Qassem sounded like he was awaiting Iranian orders. “We in Hezbollah,” he wrote, “support the Islamic Republic of Iran’s rights and it stances, and in every step and procedure it takes to defend itself and its choices.”

Hezbollah is holding its fire—verbally and physically—because it is operating under unprecedented constraints. The group never possessed conventional parity with Israel, but the anticipated destructiveness of its massive arsenal could at least create a deterrent “balance of terror” with its Israeli enemies. However, during their recent war, Israel wiped out Hezbollah’s senior-most political and military leadership and a significant portion of its strategic arsenal. This has considerably degraded Hezbollah’s ability to mount a serious attack, let alone restart the conflict and prosecute it to a stalemate—the group’s definition of victory. Hezbollah, which has barely begun to mend these deep Israeli-inflicted wounds, must also now contend with near-daily Israeli strikes on its remaining assets and personnel.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Meanwhile, domestic considerations are also impacting Hezbollah’s calculus—and will also affect Iran’s decision on whether and how to activate its formerly most powerful proxy. In September of 2024, Arab Barometer found that 70 percent of Lebanese view Hezbollah negatively. After the war, their calls for the group’s disarmament forced Hezbollah into a dialogue with President Joseph Aoun over its arsenal. These domestic conditions are far from ideal for the group. But Lebanese displeasure remains passive, and Aoun has adopted a conciliatory and unhurried approach to these talks, even making important concessions to Hezbollah on the critical post-war reconstruction file. If matters remain unchanged, they afford the group a good chance of reconstituting its strength over time. But dragging Lebanon into another destructive war not its own, mere months out from the end of the last one, could torpedo talks with Aoun and leave Hezbollah exposed to increased and intensified public anger.

If this anger seeps into Hezbollah’s Lebanese Shiite support base, the group would be facing an existential crisis. This segment of the Lebanese population has borne the brunt of all the group’s war, including the one it provoked with Israel on October 8, 2023. Utilizing propaganda to spin the war as a necessary preemption of imminent Israeli aggression and post-bellum stop-gap measures—like housing its displaced supporters in prefabricated homes—Hezbollah has been able to largely retain pre-war levels of Lebanese Shiite support. At the very least, the group has delayed a massive Shiite defection until the group can regain its footing and return to keeping them in its orbit through its traditional carrot-and-stick approach.

But only a small portion of Hezbollah’s Shiite support base is comprised of hardened Khomeinist ideologues. The rest back the group for pragmatic reasons, particularly its promise to improve their lives and collective standing inside Lebanon while protecting them from foreign threats—namely, Israel. Their patience with the group’s ideological adventures, which already brought ruin upon them for the sake of the Palestinians, is therefore not infinite.

Now, Hezbollah is promising to rebuild their homes and villages, directly or through funding from the Lebanese state. If Hezbollah instead pulls Lebanese Shiites into an Israeli-Iranian war, then whatever latent anger may be bubbling beneath their apparent placidity could very well erupt. Hezbollah could then lose the critical social support, and resulting political influence, that has long shielded the group from any attempts by the Lebanese state or army to restrain or disarm it for fear of provoking a civil war.

But Hezbollah is ultimately a self-described extension of the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding the group’s presence in Lebanon and the weight of Lebanese dynamics on its decisions. Tehran’s priorities, then, will determine the organization’s next moves.

The Iranian regime is a messianist theocracy. It is motivated by an eschatological end-goal, namely, replacing the international liberal order, which Tehran and its proxies view as inherently unjust, with the global rule of the returned Twelfth Shiite Imam, the Mahdi. This objective, more important to Iran than its preparatory steps of destroying Israel and weakening the United States, is irrational from a secular or external perspective. But to Iran’s leaders, it is the logical conclusion of their belief system, and they believe it depends on the survival of the Khomeinist regime and its revolutionary exports. Far from being the “mad mullahs” of popular imagination, they are pursuing this destructive goal with calculated pragmatism.

Therefore, unlike similarly motivated actors like the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), Iran participates in the global system it hates. Rather than war against that system and risk its own destruction, Tehran instead simultaneously advances its goals and grows its strength while undermining it from within. Iran therefore creates durable alliances, builds relationships, and engages in diplomatic initiatives that would have been anathema to an actor like ISIS. This contributes to the regime’s longevity and durability , and makes it a significantly more dangerous Western adversary.

This pragmatic mindset will dictate both Iran’s next steps and its instructions to its proxies, including Hezbollah. Tehran, then, is unlikely to activate what remains of its proxies and their capabilities unless it feels Israel’s strikes are intentionally or incidentally jeopardizing the regime’s survival. Such an activation would serve as a desperate effort to force the Israelis to desist, or to inflict as much harm as possible upon their Zionist adversaries before succumbing.

But, as far as can be told, Israel is not pursuing regime change. Jerusalem’s stated goal is to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons program and damage or destroy its ability to produce ballistic missiles. While this will certainly weaken the regime, including domestically, it will not bring about its demise absent any unintended consequences. Rather than unnecessarily risk Hezbollah’s demise between Israeli retaliation and Lebanese ire, Iran is therefore likely to leave its recovering primary proxy in reserve: to advance post-war reconstruction efforts that will placate Lebanese Shiites, retain their support, and provide the group a pathway to regeneration and the resumption its role as an active Iranian regional asset.

David Daoud is senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he focuses on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs. Follow him on X @DavidADaoud.

The post Why Hezbollah is unlikely to engage in the Israel-Iran war—for now appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Twenty questions (and expert answers) on the Israel-Iran war

Atlantic Council experts — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:57:15 +0000

A decades-old conflict between Israel and Iran that was never quite “cold” is rapidly heating up. In the days since the first Israeli attacks against the Iranian nuclear program and military leadership, more than two hundred people have been killed in Iran and at least two dozen have died in Israel. The escalating war raises all sorts of questions, from military mechanics to humanitarian efforts to Washington diplomacy and the global energy supply. Below, the Atlantic Council’s authorities on the Middle East unpack this increasingly volatile moment for the region. Read on for expert responses to twenty pressing questions on this emerging war.

1. What was the Israeli calculus in launching Friday’s strikes against Iran?

Israel recognized a golden opportunity to seize Iranian weakness, following the collapse of is proxy “Axis of Resistance” led by Hezbollah along with Israel’s operational achievements of its October 2024 attack on Iran, when Israel destroyed Tehran’s strategic air defense system. The fact that the path to Iran was open to the Israeli Air Force was a significant factor in the decision to launch the attack, especially as Iran was advancing dangerously in its enrichment program. In addition, Israel recently received intelligence that Iran had resumed its “weapons group” activity in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The combination of a country on the verge of military enrichment and an active weapons group was too dangerous in the eyes of Israel, which sought to exploit the operational window of opportunity and attack Iran as soon as it received the green light from US President Donald Trump.

—Danny Citrinowicz is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He previously served for twenty-five years in a variety of command positions units in Israel Defense Intelligence, including as the head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division.

2. How effective has Israel been in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

First, the Israeli operation’s objective was not defined as a complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. Even before its Friday attack, it was clear that Israel has a relatively limited ability to destroy nuclear capabilities without active participation from the United States. Israel can, however, significantly delay Iran’s nuclear program (by at least a year), mainly by striking facilities—starting with Natanz—assassinating nuclear scientists who represent a key bottleneck in the program, and damaging additional sites. Nevertheless, without striking the enrichment facility at Fordow, which likely would require US participation, Iran’s nuclear program cannot be destroyed, only significantly delayed.

As for Iran’s willingness to move forward with its nuclear program, the attack may, paradoxically, encourage Iran to break out toward a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, making such a decision at this time, especially in view of the intensive Israeli Air Force activity over Iran and Israel’s deep intelligence penetration into Iran’s nuclear program, would be extremely dangerous for Iran and might even motivate Washington to directly join the campaign. Therefore, Iran may prefer to avoid a nuclear breakout—at least at this stage—and instead consider this option in the future.

—Raz Zimmt is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is also a veteran Iran watcher in the Israeli Defense Forces. Follow him on X: @RZimmt.

3. How forcefully has Tehran responded, and what has the impact been?

Ultra Orthodox jews look at an impacted site following missile attack from Iran on Israel, in Bnei Brak, Israel June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Miro Maman TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

I think we are seeing that Iran’s bark is worse than its bite. Israel’s military and intelligence superiority over the Islamic Republic has overwhelmed and severely weakened the regime through decapitations, degradation of its armed forces, and damage to its nuclear program. Iran cannot compete with the surgical and lethal precision with which Israel is mounting its campaign. Israel’s leadership likely factored in the damage to the home front when making the decision to strike Iran so aggressively, and that speaks to the confidence the Israeli defense establishment has in its ability to manage and counter Iranian retaliation.

The one area I am most concerned about is the prospect of Tehran activating contingency operations targeting Israeli and Jewish interests abroad via terrorism. Iran may also consider targeting the energy interests of US partners in the Arab world as a means of extracting economic pain for these Israeli attacks. Tehran may likewise turn to cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. But in the end, Iran will face supply constraints, and we’re already seeing missiles being lobbed at Israel in more limited quantities, likely to preserve capacity.

—Jason M. Brodsky is the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). His research specialties include Iranian leadership dynamics, Iran’s military and security services, and Iran’s proxy and partner network. He is on X @JasonMBrodsky.

4. What are the the environmental and health concerns from attacks on nuclear facilities?

Attacks on nuclear facilities carry the grave threat of significant impacts on health and the environment. In its June 13 statement following Israel’s launch of strikes on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted that “at present, the competent Iranian authorities have confirmed that the Natanz enrichment site has been impacted and that there are no elevated radiation levels.” On June 14, the IAEA said there was also no change in offsite radiation at the Esfahan site, where four buildings, including a uranium conversion facility and a fuel plate fabrication plant, had been hit in the attacks from Israel.

—Jennifer T. Gordon is the director of the Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative and the Daniel B. Poneman chair for nuclear energy policy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

5. How has the IAEA responded, and are there restrictions around striking nuclear facilities under international law?

The IAEA has responded to Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear sites by reiterating its stance that “nuclear facilities must never be attacked regardless of the context or circumstances.” The IAEA’s General Conference has published resolutions noting that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.” Whether Iran’s nuclear facilities were devoted solely to peaceful use is unclear, but regardless, attacks against any type of nuclear facility set a dangerous precedent and make it increasingly difficult to pull back from conflict.

—Jennifer T. Gordon

6. How aligned, or not, are Washington and Jerusalem?

Trump’s administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government are closely aligned on goals, but less aligned on means. They both share the goals of wanting to prevent the Islamic Republic from ever having a nuclear weapon. They share the goal of Hamas being permanently removed from power in Gaza, and for Hezbollah to have far less power in Lebanon than it does now.

On means, Trump wanted to avoid war—he wants to be a peace-through-strength president, and he has people talking in one ear about supporting Israel and the other about staying clear of Middle East wars. Netanyahu sees a narrow window to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat and does not believe that the Iranian regime will ever agree to the kind of deal Trump wants. For Netanyahu, war now was the only option.

The other important dynamic is that both Trump and Netanyahu believe they have a unique destiny to lead their nations at this hour—but both leaders face a public that is deeply divided about the wisdom of their policy choices. Both are gamblers and will double down when they are convinced they are right. It is inconceivable, therefore, that Trump would ever pressure Netanyahu to end the war short of what it will take to assure Israel’s security.

—Thomas S. Warrick is a nonresident senior fellow with the Adrienne Arsht National Security Resilience Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative in the Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.

Related reading

MENASource

Apr 28, 2025

Why Israel will resist any US-Iran nuclear deal

By Danny Citrinowicz

Negotiations between the United States and Iran have displayed a significant divide between Washington and it’s ally Israel.

Iran Israel

7. Has the conflict tanked the likelihood of achieving a US nuclear deal with Iran?

The nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran seemed to have reached an impasse prior to the launch of Israeli strikes, with Washington insisting that Iran must give up enrichment and Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, insisting that Iran would never give this up. The breadth of Israeli military strikes against Iran, spanning key parts of its nuclear infrastructure, senior military officials and nuclear scientists, ballistic missile stockpiles, and more recently energy infrastructure, probably are read in Iran as aimed at regime change, and make it more likely that Tehran will consider a nuclear breakout rather than a compromise in negotiations. That said, Iran may believe it can exploit Trump’s public calls for an end to the fighting and a return to the negotiating table by hinting at concessions that would get the United States to press Israel to stand down, at least temporarily. So a nuclear deal seems remote—but an Iranian negotiating ploy to try to ensure regime survival could be in the cards.

—Alan Pino is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programs and a former US national intelligence officer for the Near East.

Related reading

MENASource

May 6, 2025

Beyond the bomb: Ideology as the engine of Iran’s nuclear doctrine

By Marjan Keypour Greenblatt

The US cannot overlook that Iran’s nuclear program is not simply about deterrence—it is a tool for advancing a revolutionary ideology.

Iran Middle East

8. Has Washington’s force posture in the Middle East shifted since Friday, and what does this tell us about potential US involvement?

Since Thursday, the Pentagon has approved significant force posture changes for US Central Command (CENTCOM). These changes include a large deployment of KC-135/KC-46 aerial refueling tankers. Depending on the numbers of tankers involved, this could be one of the largest peacetime tanker movements in history. The USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group’s deployment was extended in the Middle East. Also, the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group is moving to the CENTCOM region for overlapping carrier presence. European Command has the USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) now repositioned in the Eastern Mediterranean to contribute air defense support to Israel.

These publicly observable movements may not be the only force posture additions in the Middle East. What these changes portend is that the United States is giving itself flexible military options. This means that Washington can contribute to Israel’s operational tempo of attacks through air-to-air refueling. The United States can also increase its ability to respond through any ground-based US Air Force fighters as well as the aircraft from two carrier strike groups. Finally, this means the United States is increasing its defensive presence to contribute to the air defense of Israel.

—Daniel E. Mouton is a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He served on the National Security Council from 2021 to 2023 as the director for defense and political-military policy for the Middle East and North Africa.

9. What does the response of Iran’s regional proxies tell us?

Iran’s regional proxies have been significantly weakened. Hamas has been decimated. Hezbollah has been badly degraded to the point where there have been public reports about its wariness of getting drawn into this conflict between Israel and Iran. Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is gone. The Houthis retain a capability to strike Israel, but are not a strategic threat. The Iraqi Shiite militias also have resources. But the Islamic Republic’s proxy and partner network is a shell of its former self.

—Jason M. Brodsky

10. How could this impact Palestinians in Gaza?

The prevalent fear in Gaza is that an Israel-Iran war will distract from the already significantly dimmed light on the ongoing starvation and slaughter of civilians in the Palestinian enclave. There is also concern that war may lead to even more impunity and an escalation of Israeli bombardment in Gaza. Some people in Gaza that I’ve spoken with are terrified at the level of chaos the Iran strikes could bring—namely, the potential of this conflict spreading further across the region such that it will result in an even more prolonged war inside Gaza. However, some believe, or maybe hope, that this will help at least end this phase of the nightmare, although they don’t really know exactly what an “end” looks like.

—Arwa Damon is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and president and founder of the International Network for Aid, Relief, and Assistance (INARA).

Hamas undoubtedly imagines that an Israeli-Iranian war may strategically relieve some of the pressure on the Islamist group in the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli military reallocates intelligence and kinetic strike capabilities to the new theater.

Still, Israel will likely maintain a steady tempo of bombardment and ground operations against suspected Hamas targets in Gaza, as it has since the initiation of hostilities with Tehran. The new war is unlikely to prove beneficial to Hamas in any tactical or geostrategic way. In fact, in the medium term, Hamas’s regional posture will be further degraded by the weakening of its chief backer and supporter in Tehran.

Many Palestinians in Gaza have been subtly or even openly gloating about Iran’s woes, holding Tehran directly responsible for the destruction of their lives through Hamas and the network of anti-Israel terror organizations that served it. Though it may have limited tactical impact in the near term, the weakening or possible collapse of the Iranian regime will be a positive development for the prospects of Gaza’s rejuvenation and regeneration after the war, as well as peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

—Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib leads Realign For Palestine, an Atlantic Council project that challenges entrenched narratives in the Israel and Palestine discourse.

11. Could this war benefit or harm Russia, and how is Moscow navigating both sides?

Russia could potentially benefit from the Israel-Iran conflict, by US attention and support being redirected from Ukraine to Israel, and by the rise in oil prices which provide Moscow with greater resources to fund its war against Ukraine. If the Israel-Iran conflict ends quickly, though, these benefits may not last long. The recent phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which both called for an end to the Israel-Iran conflict, also furthers Putin’s aim of increasing Russian cooperation with Washington despite the war in Ukraine continuing.

But, as some Russian commentators have noted, the Israel-Iran conflict also involves the risk of regime collapse in Iran. Like in Syria, this would mean the downfall of a longstanding government that had cooperated closely with Moscow, and Russia having to compete with others for influence with the new authorities emerging in Iran afterward, whatever they might be. With Russia preoccupied by its war against Ukraine, however, Putin would not be in a strong position to do this.

Thus, while the Israel-Iran conflict provides some benefits to Russia, it also poses serious risks for it as well. Putin’s calls to end the Israel-Iran conflict through diplomatic means, then, undoubtedly reflect what he really wants to see happen. Yet even if the conflict does end through (as Putin wants) joint Russian-American mediation efforts, it could result in Iran being more cooperative with the United States than it has been in the past.

—Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and a professor emeritus of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.

Related reading

Inflection Points Today

Jan 18, 2025

A Russian-Iranian inaugural gift for Trump

By Frederick Kempe

The new “comprehensive partnership agreement” between Moscow and Tehran is the latest example of greater coordination among the “axis of aggressors.”

China Conflict

12. Could this war benefit or harm China, and how is Beijing navigating both sides?

China condemned Israel’s attack and has called on both sides to de-escalate. Nevertheless, Beijing almost certainly sees an opportunity to promote itself as a responsible actor, and even a potential mediator, in the crisis. A wider, regional conflict would raise China’s risk-to-benefit calculus as it would threaten its regional economic, namely energy, interests. As such, China would welcome Washington reining in Israel and resuming talks with Iran. China will also be quick to amplify US failings, real or not, if the situation deteriorates as part of its broader campaign to undermine the United States’ global position and influence.

—Gabriel “Gabo” Alvarado is a former nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. He currently works at Nisos.

13. What weapons have Israel and Iran deployed so far?

From June 13-16, Israel flew F-35I, F-15I, and F-16 aircraft to conduct hundreds of airstrikes using GBU-28 bunker busters, Rampage missiles, and precision munitions against Iranian nuclear facilities, military leadership, and critical infrastructure. Iran retaliated with hundreds of ballistic missiles from its arsenal. Iran‘s attacks include Fattah hypersonic missiles, Khorramshahr ballistic missiles, and other missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to target Israel in “Operation Severe Punishment.”

—Daniel E. Mouton

14. What are the nuclear counter-proliferation implications of the conflict?

The counter-proliferation implications of this conflict are noteworthy. The IAEA on June 12 declared Iran non-compliant with Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations for the first time in twenty years. Iran responded by announcing a third uranium enrichment site and threatening NPT withdrawal. While Israel may have destroyed Natanz’s above-ground enrichment plant, the crisis runs the risk of paradoxically accelerating proliferation risks. If this conflict does not fully eliminate the current and future threat of Iranian proliferation, Iran’s irreversible knowledge of the enrichment cycle means that it can simply rebuild and do so with a greater desire to succeed next time.

—Daniel E. Mouton

15. What Iranian oil and gas facilities has Israel targeted, and does this have an impact on the wider fallout?

Israel appears to have successfully hit two natural gas processing facilities in Phase Fourteen of the South Pars gas field, forcing Iran to suspend operations there. Iran’s natural gas production is consumed domestically due to significant sanctions on exporting natural gas. Israeli strikes also hit a major fuel depot and an oil refinery near Tehran. These are significant hits because Iran’s energy situation was already precarious, with parts of the country experiencing planned blackouts due to electricity shortages. Without consistent access to fuel, Iranians living in Tehran cannot evacuate. If Israel takes out additional domestic energy sites around Iran, the potential for the country to simply fall apart is very high. Without fuel, food cannot be transported to cities. Without electricity and running water, illness will proliferate and people will die.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

At the same time, Israel has not gone after oil production facilities or Kharg Island, where 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil and condensate exports are loaded onto tankers. This leaves Iran’s role in the global oil market relatively unchanged, keeping China satisfied and oil prices under control. If Israel does attack Iran’s oil production or export sites, the entire paradigm will change. As senior official Javad Larijani recently said, if Iran’s oil facilities are severely damaged, Tehran won’t let any country in the region use its own oil.

—Ellen R. Wald is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and the president of Transversal Consulting.

16. What is the Strait of Hormuz, and why does it matter if Tehran closes it?

Most oil market watchers think this conflict is a direct threat to the Strait of Hormuz, a very narrow waterway that leads out of the Persian Gulf. Oil tankers loading oil from Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, parts of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Iran must pass through this chokepoint to exit the Gulf. Approximately 20 percent of the world’s seaborne crude oil exports travel through the Strait of Hormuz. It is very narrow, rocky, and only deep enough for oil tankers to navigate in certain places. The current traffic patterns for the Strait have ships traveling through Iranian waters to enter and exit the Gulf.

Iran may be able to block ships using ships and missiles launched from the shore, though this would only be temporary as the traffic pattern can be rerouted around Iranian waters. It would take some time, and there would be a period of dislocation during which oil prices would spike, but it could be done. However, Iran will only directly threaten the security of ships in the Persian Gulf if it has nothing to lose. Since Iran continues to export oil and condensate, and needs to continue to do so to fund its operations, it is extremely unlikely that it will take action to hamper or halt any ship traffic into or out of the Persian Gulf.

—Ellen R. Wald

17. What dynamics is the Iranian regime grappling with domestically, and how will this impact the conflict?

At this stage, the Iranian regime appears to be maintaining its unity, resolve, and stability, and is closing ranks in the face of an external threat. The anger of the Iranian public, whose hostility toward the regime is well known, has grown due to the authorities’ failure to provide security and protect their people. Nevertheless, it seems that at this moment, the public’s attitude is influenced largely by images of civilians injured and damage to residential neighborhoods in Tehran from Israeli Air Force attacks. This could contribute (at least for now) to a strengthening of national solidarity and a rally-around-the-flag effect. Nevertheless, the continued Israeli military efforts may, over time, weaken the regime’s security, intelligence, and governmental structures, as well as its ability to deal with internal challenges, which could, in the future, pave the way for undermining its stability.

—Raz Zimmt

18. How is the Iranian public responding?

With the caveat that my sources are limited, I’m seeing a range of responses from the Iranian people. Regime supporters, who are now a small minority, are predictably outraged at Israel and support the Islamic Republic’s retaliatory strikes. Most Iranians at this point oppose their regime, and there’s little love lost for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders whom Israel killed. However, many Iranians are expressing sorrow for the innocent civilians killed in the Israeli strikes, particularly those who died when Israel struck residential apartment buildings in Tehran. For Iranians who lived through the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the strikes have also stirred up traumatic memories of bombs raining down on Tehran during that war.

A woman carries her child following the Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025. Amir Kholousi/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS – THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

It’s important to note that a lot of Iranians, including those who oppose their government, have complicated feelings about the country’s nuclear program. Many feel that Iran has a right like any other country to have a nuclear program for energy purposes. Yet the idea of developing a nuclear weapon is controversial, with many opposing nuclear weapons for a variety of reasons. The Iranian people also overwhelmingly do not want war. The majority at this point want to see the end of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a democratic system grounded in human rights and peace.

Mostly, I’ve seen the Iranian people express a lot of anger at their own government for the current situation. They’ve pointed out how there was no warning from the government, no air raid sirens or any other alert, before the Israeli strikes hit. Instead, the strikes hit residential buildings in the early hours of the morning as the people inside slept, oblivious to the danger headed toward them. The public is angry, but not surprised, that the Islamic Republic did not protect its own people. They’ve suffered a lot already, and they are fearful, worried, and angry that many more innocent Iranians are likely to suffer in the conflict to come, especially if things escalate into all-out war.

—Kelly J. Shannon is a historian and visiting scholar at the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. She is also a member of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project Working Group.

19. How is the Israeli public responding?

Most of the Israeli public supports the government’s action and sees the launch of strikes as necessary considering the claims that Iran is dangerously close to a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile the public is giving credit to the government in the campaign, despite the severe casualties on the Israeli home front.

—Danny Citrinowicz

20. Where do we go from here?

Israel’s broad-based assault on Iran’s nuclear and governmental infrastructure and Tehran’s massive missile barrages against Israeli civilians have raised the stakes sky-high for both countries, making it hard to engineer a cease-fire. Israeli officials continue to say that they have many more targets to strike, as they broaden their campaign beyond nuclear installations, top military officials, ballistic missile launch pads, and stockpiles to Iran’s energy infrastructure and government buildings in Tehran.

When asked by an interviewer if Israel is seeking regime change in Iran, Netanyahu said that regime change could be the result of Israel’s actions because “the Iran regime is very weak.” Israel, at a minimum, wants to do enough damage to Iran’s nuclear program that Tehran cannot reconstitute it for the foreseeable future or race to get a nuclear weapon.

Iranian leaders seem to calculate they must continue to show they can inflict punishment on Israel or risk further losing credibility in the eyes of Iranians and perhaps face significant unrest from their population, many of whom have turned against the ruling clerics.

Trump may be the wild card here depending on whether he wants to let the two sides “fight it out,” or if he decides to press Israel to wind down its attacks and Iran to return to nuclear negotiations. Given that a nuclear deal in which Iran gives up enrichment is unlikely, even if a temporary halt to the fighting is achieved, Israel will keep Iran in its crosshairs and conflict between the two countries will dominate Trump’s Middle East agenda for the forseeable future.

—Alan Pino

The post Twenty questions (and expert answers) on the Israel-Iran war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ullman in the Hill on how the simultaneity of crises threaten US national security

bgalicia — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:05:02 +0000

original Source

On June 16, Atlantic Council Senior Advisor Harlan Ullman published an op-ed in the Hill warning of a potential “crisis point” for the US government if domestic immigration protests intensify while tensions escalate in the Middle East. He argues that convergence of crises at home and abroad could overwhelm policymakers and stain the US government’s ability to respond effectively.

International Advisory Board member

Harlan Ullman

Senior Advisor

The post Ullman in the Hill on how the simultaneity of crises threaten US national security appeared first on Atlantic Council.

How the US can reduce the risk of wider war in the Middle East

Caroline Zier — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 19:45:01 +0000

Israel has again demonstrated an uncanny ability to rewrite the regional playbook with a multi-pronged, multi-day attack on Iran’s nuclear program, air defenses, and military leadership. The first phase of attacks in particular—strikes at the heart of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, the decapitation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force leadership, and nuclear scientists—caused many to marvel at the boldness of David against Goliath.

As the Trump administration navigates this chapter, the key will be to contain and defuse the situation as the regional players sort through the changed landscape. De-escalation in the near term is not a foregone conclusion. It will require heavy lifting from the US military, which remains indispensable in times of crisis.

Details of the battle damage are still emerging, and Israel, Iran, and the United States do not yet fully know what these attacks mean for Iran’s defensive and counter-strike capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives may not be static: As he sees additional opportunities to set back Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, his campaign may expand and go on far longer, as was the case in the operations against Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran may be on its back foot, but it will likely be compelled to respond with its remaining capabilities, as it began to do over the weekend with its waves of missile strikes across Israel.

Usually, the United States has greater leverage and sway with its allies and partners than its adversaries, born from the military, economic, and diplomatic threads that each ally can pull to compel the other toward an outcome. In this friendly tug-of-war over national interests, the heavyweight United States pulls toward its preferred outcomes. However, in the unique case of Israel, the smaller partner may outpace US efforts to de-escalate if additional deliberate steps are not taken.

Washington does have some leverage over a weakened Tehran. Iran does not want an all-out war with the United States. For this reason, Iran has historically relied on its proxy network of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Shia militia groups for indirect and small-scale attacks on US forces and interests. This helps explain why Israel wants to link arms with the United States now, signaling to Iran that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian officials have played along, stating that the United States is complicit. That may be directed toward Iranian domestic audiences—and a warning for the United States to rein in Israel.

Regardless of Iranian intent, the situation requires the US military to be in position to defend and respond to Iranian aggression. How then should the White House manage this spiral of escalation to avoid a wider regional war? Five initial steps are needed.

1. Set the theater to defend US forces and Israel

The United States should continue to set the theater for Iranian responses—and it should telegraph how it is doing so. Ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean, more interceptors for air defense systems across the region, and additional air power in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean island Diego Garcia will position the US military for defending US forces and Israel, as well as providing options to strike Iran if necessary. Forces that have been deployed for extended periods should be backfilled with ready forces, and additional units can be placed on prepare-to-deploy orders. The force movements and heightened alert status, combined with clear messaging, can communicate to Iran that the price of attacking the United States is extraordinarily high, particularly given Iran’s significantly degraded proxy network and air defenses. Internally, there should be a conditions-based approach to redeploying the forces once the situation settles down.

The United States must also continue to help defend Israel itself, which is the clearest path to stabilizing the region. Surging additional US capabilities into the theater may embolden Israel to launch additional strikes on Iran, but the greater risk is not being in position to defend against attacks on US forces and blunt Iran’s subsequent attacks on Israel.

2. Move from authorized departures to ordered departures

The White House should accelerate what it put in motion through voluntary departures from State Department facilities last week by moving to ordered departures at those same locations. Temporarily reducing the number of nonemergency personnel and dependents can reduce the demands on US forces to defend and evacuate those locations later. It also signals to the region that the price of escalation is a diminished US presence, which many US partners do not want, and it provides an incentive for these partners to work toward de-escalation.

3. Refresh the plans for noncombatant evacuations (NEOs) from Israel and Jordan

The NEO plans have been refreshed repeatedly since October 7, 2023, though the in-extremis conditions that would precipitate large-scale evacuations have never been met. These worst-case scenario plans should be dusted off again, and US government officials should discuss internally what the trip wires would be to execute the NEOs, such as commercial airports losing functionality. The United States should also discuss NEO plans with allies and partners, who often expect assistance with their evacuations but too often do not communicate their assumptions about US assistance until late in the game.

4. Prepare to strike Iran if Iran attacks the United States

The United States will need to strike forcefully if Iran does attack US forces or bases. To that end, the US military should refresh and expand response options that would exploit Iran’s newest vulnerabilities, such as military sites that are now without adequate air defenses or exposed headquarters that serve as nerve centers for IRGC operations. The Trump administration can choose how and when it responds, and some of the steps taken to set the theater for defense will help facilitate going on the offensive.

5. Pace the crises across time and space

Any administration can only juggle a handful of crises at any given time. The Trump administration should consider which departments have comparative advantages in navigating which crises, given the finite bandwidth of senior leaders and high-demand US forces. The US military is uniquely and singularly manned, trained, and equipped to reduce the chance of a larger regional war that could have devastating human and economic costs for the United States—and the entire region. The White House should therefore prioritize de-escalating quickly in order to focus on other theaters and priorities.

With steady, cool-headed leadership at this heated moment, the United States can reduce the possibility of a wider regional war that could spin out of control.

Caroline Zier is a nonresident senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. She has over fifteen years of experience in national security and defense at the Department of Defense, most recently serving as the deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

The post How the US can reduce the risk of wider war in the Middle East appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Kroenig quoted in Time on Israel’s strikes on Iran

ssherry — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:14:31 +0000

ORIGINAL SOURCE

On June 13, Matthew Kroenig, Atlantic Council vice president and Scowcroft Center senior director, was quoted in Time on the motivations behind the airstrikes Israel directed at Iranian nuclear sites, as well as its military leaders and scientists.

This really was done as a last resort. They were out of time. The best estimates were that Iran’s dash time to one bomb’s worth of weapons grade material was down to about a week.

Matthew Kroenig

Staff

Matthew Kroenig

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Defense Policy

The post Kroenig quoted in Time on Israel’s strikes on Iran appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Kroenig quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Trump’s potential framing of Israel’s strikes on Iran

ssherry — Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:15:00 +0000

ORIGINAL SOURCE

On June 13, Matthew Kroenig, Atlantic Council vice president and Scowcroft Center senior director, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal on how President Trump may choose to present Israel’s strikes on Iranian military and nuclear installations, as well as its military leadership, in light of his “peacemaker” pledge.

I think he can go to the traditional Reaganites and say, “Peace through strength, we’re not letting evil regimes build nuclear weapons”…But he can also go to the MAGA folks and say, “No Americans were killed, we didn’t do this, and allies are stepping up and taking care of security threats for us.”

Matthew Kroenig

Staff

Matthew Kroenig

Vice President and Senior Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Defense Policy

The post Kroenig quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Trump’s potential framing of Israel’s strikes on Iran appeared first on Atlantic Council.

By fusing intelligence and special operations, Israel’s strikes on Iran are a lesson in strategic surprise

Doug Livermore — Sat, 14 Jun 2025 16:14:51 +0000

Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion” against Iran, launched early Friday in the Middle East, represents an evolution in how democratic nations can prepare for and execute preemptive operations against peer adversaries.

By fusing years of intelligence preparation with special operations capabilities, Israel achieved strategic surprise and devastating effect against Iran’s nuclear program and military leadership despite months and years of mounting tensions. The operation offers critical lessons for Western military planners facing similar challenges with peer competitors who possess advanced air defenses, nuclear ambitions, and totalitarian control.

Of course, Friday’s Israeli strike on Iran occurred under relatively favorable conditions—already degraded air defenses, neutralized proxies, and no existing nuclear deterrent—complicating direct comparisons to potential preemptive strikes on true US peers such as Russia or China. Still, the concepts retain value worth exploring as Western militaries seek unconventional options to address emerging threats.

Anatomy of a surprise

Israel’s Mossad spy agency had smuggled weapons into Iran ahead of Friday’s strikes, establishing a base of operations from which it remotely launched explosive-laden drones and positioning short-range, precision weapons near critical surface-to-air missile systems. This multiyear preparation enabled what Israeli officials describe as a coordinated campaign targeting Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz, its nuclear scientists and military leaders, and parts of its ballistic missile program with devastating precision.

This three-pronged approach demonstrates sophisticated planning that Western intelligence and special operations forces (SOF) should study carefully. First, Mossad commando units deployed precision-guided weapons systems near Iranian surface-to-air missile installations, which activated immediately preceding Israeli Air Force strikes to drop Tehran’s defenses at a critical juncture. Second, specialized equipment and munitions were clandestinely emplaced across Iran to carry out the full range of attacks that achieved the effective decapitation of Iran’s military leadership. Third, explosive drone bases were established deep in Iranian territory to target Iran’s offensive missile systems at strategic sites to deny Tehran an immediate response capability.

The power of pre-positioned munitions

The most striking aspect of Operation Rising Lion was Israel’s ability to achieve tactical surprise through pre-positioned assets rather than relying solely on standoff weapons or penetrating strikes. According to Israeli security sources, Mossad operatives established drone and missile bases “in the open, not far from Iran’s air defense systems” and used vehicle-based weapons platforms throughout the country. This approach allowed over two hundred Israeli aircraft to drop more than 330 munitions on some one hundred targets during the opening strikes while facing degraded air defenses.

The strategic logic parallels successful special operations from previous conflicts. As I wrote recently about Ukraine’s experience against Russia, the core tenets of deep special operations remain constant: “the element of surprise achieved through operational security and misdirection; the targeting of high-value, lightly defended assets in the enemy’s rear areas; and the psychological impact that far exceeds the tactical damage inflicted.” Israel’s pre-positioning strategy enabled all three simultaneously.

Decapitation through intelligence fusion

The operation successfully eliminated Iran’s top military leadership, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Hossein Salami, Chief of Staff Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, Emergency Forces Commander Gholam Rashid, and several nuclear scientists. This represents one of the most successful decapitation strikes in modern warfare, demonstrating how intelligence preparation can enable surgical targeting of command structures.

The targeting methodology reflects years of intelligence preparation. Israeli officials compiled detailed intelligence dossiers on senior Iranian defense officials and nuclear scientists, enabling precise targeted assassinations while conducting a coordinated campaign to neutralize Iran’s strategic missile array through airstrikes and deep-cover operations. This holistic approach—combining human intelligence, technical collection, and operational preparation—offers a template for future operations against peer adversaries.

Asymmetric air-defense suppression

Perhaps the most operationally significant aspect was Israel’s innovative approach to suppressing Iranian air defenses. Rather than relying solely on conventional airborne Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions, Israel used pre-positioned systems to launch precision strikes simultaneously toward designated targets with remarkable accuracy. It deployed advanced technologies mounted on vehicles that completely destroyed Iranian air-defense targets at the onset of the attack.

This approach enabled Israeli planes to achieve air superiority and freedom of maneuver during subsequent waves of the operation. The methodology demonstrates how special operations can create windows of vulnerability in sophisticated air defense networks that conventional forces can then exploit. As the West looks at China’s growing anti-access/area denial capabilities across the Western Pacific, SOF could pursue similar approaches to prevent Beijing from isolating Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines with long-range antiaircraft systems.

The element of strategic surprise

The operation’s most remarkable feat may be that it achieved strategic surprise despite widespread expectations of Israeli action. Multiple reports over recent days suggested that US officials believed Israel could be preparing to strike Iran, with American personnel evacuated from the region and diplomatic warnings about potential mass casualty events. Yet Iran appeared unprepared for the scale and coordination of the actual attack.

This suggests that strategic surprise in modern warfare depends less on concealing intentions than on concealing capabilities and timing. Israel’s years-long preparation phase enabled operational surprise even when strategic intentions were evident to all parties. As an Israeli security official told the Times of Israel, the mission relied on “groundbreaking thinking, bold planning and surgical operation of advanced technologies, special forces and agents operating in the heart of Iran while evading the eyes of local intelligence.”

Specifically, Western defense planners should carry forward six lessons.

The operation demonstrates how long-term intelligence-SOF fusion can serve deterrent functions while providing robust options if deterrence fails. Israel’s ability to pre-position assets and develop detailed targeting packages likely influenced Iranian decision-making for years before the actual strike. When deterrence ultimately failed, these preparations enabled decisive action rather than graduated escalation.
The use of technologies ranging from precision-guided missiles to explosive-laden drones and vehicle-based weapons platforms demonstrates how modern capabilities can enhance rather than replace classical special operations principles. Ukraine’s recent “Operation Spiderweb” similarly shows how, as I wrote recently, “technological evolution from Lewes bombs to precision drones masks deeper continuities in special operations thinking.” SOF must continue to innovate to provide options for strategic surprise.
Israel’s strikes provide a model for how intelligence services and SOF, through prior operational preparation, can provide robust options for national leadership. This confidence appears grounded in extensive preparation and multiple redundant capabilities that enabled coordinated strikes across multiple Iranian nuclear facilities while simultaneously targeting military command structures.
Western nations should prioritize intelligence-SOF fusion capabilities that enable long-term operational preparation in potential conflict zones. This requires sustained investment in human intelligence capabilities, technical collection systems, and special operations units trained for extended autonomous operations in denied areas.
Israel’s early success despite obvious tensions suggests that operational security remains achievable even under intense scrutiny. The effort relied on close coordination between the Israel Defense Forces and the Mossad intelligence agency over multiple years, indicating that compartmentalization and operational discipline can preserve surprise even in highly monitored environments.
This operation tests the value of preemption. If Iran’s counterattacks fail to deliver a major impact, Israel’s attack could show how well-prepared preemptive action can end conflicts on favorable terms rather than beginning them. By targeting Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and military leadership simultaneously, Israel appears to have degraded Iran’s ability to sustain prolonged conflict while achieving its core security objectives.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that the operation would continue “for as many days as it takes to remove this threat” suggests confidence in sustained capabilities rather than one-off strikes. While Tehran retaliated Friday with drones and missiles that killed three people and caused dozens of Israeli injuries, it remains to be seen just how effective its responses will be in light of the regime’s severely degraded capabilities.

Operation Rising Lion represents the evolution of modern special operations principles established during World War II and refined through decades of irregular warfare. The integration of multiyear intelligence preparation, pre-positioned capabilities, and coordinated targeting demonstrates how democratic nations can achieve strategic surprise against peer adversaries even in highly scrutinized security environments.

For Western military planners, the operation offers both inspiration and instruction. The challenge lies not in replicating Israeli capabilities but in developing equivalent intelligence-SOF fusion that provides national leadership with robust options across the spectrum of conflict. Unlike Iran, both China and Russia possess large, survivable nuclear arsenals, which introduces significant escalation risks to any decapitation strike or preemptive action, even if conventional thresholds are initially observed. As tensions with peer competitors continue to mount, the ability to achieve strategic surprise through patient preparation rather than reactive escalation may prove decisive.

The Greek warriors who hid away in the Trojan Horse before springing forth to storm the gates of Troy would recognize the operational logic, if not the technology, used by today’s special operators. Strategic surprise through careful preparation, audacious execution, and clear purpose remains the foundation of effective special operations. Israel’s achievement lies in demonstrating how these timeless principles can be adapted to counter twenty-first-century threats while providing templates for democratic nations facing similar challenges with authoritarian adversaries.

The lesson for future irregular warfare is clear: When facing peer adversaries with advanced capabilities and nuclear ambitions, patient intelligence preparation combined with innovative special operations can achieve effects that conventional deterrence alone cannot guarantee. The investment in such capabilities may prove the difference between managing conflict and winning it decisively.

Doug Livermore is the director of engagements for the Irregular Warfare Initiative, a member of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Group, the national vice president for the Special Operations Association of America, national director for external communications at the Special Forces Association, and the deputy commander for Special Operations Detachment–Joint Special Operations Command in the North Carolina Army National Guard. He is a former senior government civilian, intelligence officer, and contractor in various roles at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Army.

The views expressed are the author’s and do not represent official US government, Department of Defense, or Department of the Army positions.

The post By fusing intelligence and special operations, Israel’s strikes on Iran are a lesson in strategic surprise appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Assessing the fallout from Israel’s extraordinary attack on Iran

Atlantic Council — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:43:10 +0000

GET UP TO SPEED

The Natanz nuclear site severely damaged. Dozens of Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists killed. A region on a knife’s edge. Israel’s extraordinary military operation against Iran early Friday in the Middle East marks another major turning point for a region that has been experiencing dizzying upheaval since Hamas’s attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. As Iran responded with a wave of drones and Israel continued to hit military and nuclear sites on Friday, we turned to our experts to assess the fallout.

TODAY’S EXPERT REACTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY

Daniel B. Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro): Distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and former US ambassador to Israel
Kirsten Fontenrose: Nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and former senior director for the Gulf at the US National Security Council
Shalom Lipner (@shalomlipner): Jerusalem-based nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and former advisor to seven Israeli prime ministers
William Wechsler (@WillWechsler): Senior director of the Council’s Middle East Programs and former US deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combatting terrorism

Attack mode

With these strikes, “Israel demonstrated its full penetration of Iran, and ability to wreak havoc across the Iranian system,” Dan tells us. “Iran has never looked weaker, and its ability to respond meaningfully will be tested.”
Recent reassurances by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to political leaders that the country’s “air defenses could withstand an Israeli strike” may have led Iran to conclude that it could slow-walk nuclear negotiations beyond US President Donald Trump’s two-month deadline, Kirsten notes. That, in turn, may have led Israel to conclude that it was time to strike. “The generals behind those white lies were the first targets” of Israel’s operation, she points out.
Filing from Jerusalem, Shalom says Israeli leaders appear to have authorized the operation after concluding that Iran “was on the threshold of a dangerous breakthrough in its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.”
Israel “took advantage of a rapidly shrinking window for military action, before relevant Iranian infrastructure became too advanced or well-protected,” Shalom adds. The widespread assumption that Israel wouldn’t make any military moves until after this weekend’s scheduled US-Iranian talks in Oman also “narrowed the opportunity for any element of surprise.”

Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.

Tehran’s next moves

In the hours after Israel’s attack, Iran fired more than one hundred drones toward Israel, though the Israel Defense Forces said it was able to intercept many of them. That won’t be the last word. “Iran’s reaction likely will include both direct attacks on Israel and retaliation via its remaining proxy groups,” Will predicts, though “the obedience of some of those proxies is in question,” particularly amid reports that Hezbollah will not jump into the fight.
While the first round of Israeli strikes appears to have caused significant damage to the Natanz nuclear facility, that’s not the only place where Iran was enriching uranium. “Iran will now be supremely motivated to sprint to a nuclear breakout at hardened, underground facilities,” Dan warns.
Kirsten is keeping a close eye on the region’s Arab states, which have been subject to “tug-of-war diplomacy” between the United States, which would like them to once again help defend against Iranian retaliation, and Iran, which would prefer they look the other way.
Shooting down Iranian projectiles that cross their airspace “is such a no-brainer that the United States would likely conclude that any munitions not reported or mitigated by Arab states were intentionally ignored,” Kirsten says. “Neither the United States nor its Arab partners want that kind of tension to arise.”

Wartime Washington

On Thursday night in Washington, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement making clear that Israel was acting unilaterally and the United States was “not involved.” By Friday morning, however, Trump was telling ABC News that Israel’s strike was “excellent” and warning Iran that there is “more to come.”
The United States could be pulled into the war via attacks by Iran or its proxy forces on US personnel in the region, Will tells us. Alternatively, if Israel’s attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities prove ineffective and instead “provide Tehran with an excuse to race toward developing nuclear weapons, then US officials may conclude that their only option is to use military force to prevent this worst-case scenario.”
Such a decision could “split [Trump’s] advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings” that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is attempting to drag him into war,” Dan observes. In any case, “Trump’s dream of a diplomatic resolution that ends Iranian [nuclear] enrichment appears dead.”
Given “his strong objection to the US becoming involved in another war in the Middle East,” it would be “deeply ironic” for Trump to be drawn into another presidency-defining conflict, Will says. “At times like these, there is no substitute for Washington exercising decisive leadership, rather than waiting to be at the mercy of decisions made by others.”

The post Assessing the fallout from Israel’s extraordinary attack on Iran appeared first on Atlantic Council.

China’s basing quest in the Gulf: Pipe dream or strategic reality?

Leonardo Jacopo Maria Mazzucco — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:06:59 +0000

On March 9, 2025, two Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) vessels joined Iranian and Russian warships in the fifth annual Security Belt drill in the Gulf of Oman. Since 2019, Beijing has joined Tehran and Moscow four times in Security Belt naval drills, testing joint counterterrorism and counter-piracy capabilities in the Gulf of Oman. This reflects China’s broader naval strategy to expand its overseas maritime presence, establish a military footprint, and project power in the Gulf.

Over the past two decades, China’s maritime strategy has evolved from its early, and main, focus on coastal defense to also include far-seas operations. This shift aimed at securing sea lanes critical to energy imports, safeguarding market access, and shaping global maritime norms aligned with its national interests. To this end, China has sought to build global maritime power by leveraging its investments in a vast network of commercial port infrastructure, which has assumed an increasing prominent role in its broader security posture. In parallel, Beijing has significantly invested in expanding the PLAN capabilities and fleet, aiming to transform it into a force capable of sustain power projection far beyond China’s immediate periphery.

The quest for global basing

As China’s overseas commercial interests have expanded, so has its naval footprint. Beijing has sought access and facilities, particularly along Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) routes, leveraging infrastructure investments to advance military reach.

The opening of China’s first overseas military installation in Djibouti in 2017 marked the start of this effort. Notably, the PLAN has been active in the waters off the Horn of Africa since the late 2000s, when Beijing established an independent naval escort taskforce (NEFT) to combat Somali pirates. While the piracy threat has gradually subsided since the mid-2010s, the PLAN has kept a regular naval presence in the region, completing about fourty-seven rotational deployments.

A blend of economic, geopolitical, and strategic interests anchors the PLAN to this maritime region. These include securing energy and trade routes vital to China’s economic system, as well as monitoring Western naval forces en route from the Mediterranean to the Indo-Pacific (Beijing’s main theater of interest).

Capable of housing up to two thousand troops and supporting major naval platforms, the Djibouti base has fuel, weapons, and equipment storage facilities, including an 1,300 foot airstrip. Besides, a base expansion project added a one thousand foot dual-side berth in 2020, making it suitable for aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Though officially focused on supporting non-combat tasks (refueling, resupply, and crew rest) of the NEFT, the periodic presence of amphibious ships and attack submarines signals its expeditionary utility.

China is also suspected of operating a facility at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia, officially reopened in April after a three-year, Chinese-sponsored upgrade. The base features infrastructure for high-tonnage warships and lies near the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca. Despite Cambodian denials of a permanent Chinese military presence, the scale of Chinese involvement and naval activity suggests otherwise.

Commonalities between the Djibouti and Ream naval facilities illustrate three key priorities for a Chinese military foothold in the Gulf region. First, easy access to maritime chokepoints vital to China’s economic and geopolitical interests. Second, the capacity to accommodate big warships and provide advanced fleet support services. Third, a host country sympathetic to China’s foreign policy, or at least willing to engage in a balancing act between Washington and Beijing.

A Gulf military foothold

Strategically positioned near critical global shipping corridors, serviced by modern port infrastructure, and eager to diversify security partners beyond conventional Western interlocutors, most of the Gulf Arab countries meet China’s needs for military expansion. While each Gulf country offers different capabilities, recent developments suggest Chinese planners would find the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or Oman the most suitable for a Chinese naval base.

The UAE

In 2021, US intelligence flagged suspicious Chinese activity at Khalifa Port, Abu Dhabi’s main container terminal, raising alarms about potential military construction. Although the UAE halted the project under US diplomatic pressure. But in a 2023report, The Washington Post, citing top-secret US intelligence documents leaked earlier that year, reported that construction at the suspected Chinese military facility may have resumed. The report did not confirm whether the activity was explicitly military in nature, nor did it provide evidence of continued progress beyond that point.

Since then, there have been no publicly available indications that Chinese military construction is ongoing at the site. Given the strong likelihood that any resumed activity would trigger renewed US pressure, the absence of further disclosures may suggest that the project remains dormant or under close scrutiny.

Beijing’s interest in Khalifa Port is rooted in both commercial and strategic considerations. It is a critical Belt and Road Initiative node, with major Chinese firms involved in port logistics and infrastructure, and Chinese enterprises invested in adjacent industrial zones. Strategically, the port offers China a vantage point for monitoring maritime trade routes and Western military activity. Located under fifty miles from Jebel Ali Port—where the US Navy makes calls for goodwill visits and replenishment—and al-Dhafra Air Base, which hosts US and French forces, Khalifa provides tactical intelligence value.

If Chinese ambitions at Khalifa stall, Fujairah may offer an alternative. As a major bunkering and anchorage hub with direct access to open waters, thus bypassing the vulnerable Strait of Hormuz, Fujairah is strategically appealing. While no public evidence links China to military ambitions there, the port’s capacity to host large warships makes it a potential candidate. However, similar concerns over US sensitivities would factor into Emirati decision-making.

From Abu Dhabi’s perspective, balancing is key. While the UAE seeks to benefit from Chinese investment—especially in logistics and advanced technology—it is acutely aware of the risks such ties pose to its decades-long security partnership with the United States. Abu Dhabi still depends on Washington’s defense guarantees, arms sales, and intelligence cooperation. Any move perceived by the United States as enabling Chinese military access could jeopardize this relationship. As such, the Emirati leadership appears to be walking a careful line, welcoming Chinese commercial ventures but pulling back when such projects threaten to encroach on sensitive security domains.

Oman

Oman also figures prominently in Beijing’s strategic calculus. In 2023, US intelligence alerted former President Joe Biden’s administration to China’s possible plans to establish a military presence in the sultanate. Following Beijing’s established model, seen in Djibouti, of using commercial investment to lay the groundwork for military access, the port of Duqm emerged as a likely candidate. A 2016 agreement between China and Oman granted a fifty-year lease to co-develop the China-Oman Industrial Park, backed by over ten billion dollars in Chinese investments. While several notable initiatives within the park have been launched in recent years, the overall development remains incomplete, with many key projects still underway. Despite these mixed results, the port remains central to China’s long-term economic footprint.

Despite Duqm’s potential, Chinese naval activity suggests Salalah may be the preferred option. Oman’s largest and busiest port, Salalah, handled over 3.3 million twenty foot equivalent units (TEUs) in 2024 and features deep-water berths capable of hosting large naval vessels. While China lacks a commercial presence there, its navy has regularly used Salalah for resupply and port calls since 2009 as part of its Gulf of Aden counter-piracy operations. The Type 054A frigate Honghe most recently made a five-day stop at Salalah for logistical resupply and crew rest.

Oman’s foreign policy approach is shaped by its decades-long tradition of neutrality and quiet diplomacy. While Oman is eager to attract Chinese investment to boost its struggling economy, it is also wary of provoking tensions with the United States, a longstanding security interlocutor. Though less dependent on Washington than Abu Dhabi, Muscat is unlikely to allow Chinese military basing that could imperil its role as a neutral regional broker. Instead, it may prefer to offer logistical access without formal basing commitments.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Limited security gains

From the Gulf’s perspective, allowing PLAN access is less about direct military benefits and more about strategic diversification. Chinese basing arrangements could facilitate arms sales and tech transfers aligned with Gulf military-industrial ambitions.

However, the security payoff is limited. During the Houthi anti-shipping campaign, China declined to play an active security role. Rather than joining Western-led efforts to protect Red Sea shipping lanes, Beijing reportedly secured Iranian mediation to avoid Houthi attacks on Chinese vessels. This hands-off approach included suspected passive support: neutral stances at the United Nations, exports of dual-use components, and provision of satellite data potentially used to target US naval assets.

US pushback

The main obstacle to Chinese military basing in the Gulf is US opposition. Both Abu Dhabi and Muscat are integral to the US defense network, with extensive American military assets stationed in the region.

As US-China strategic competition deepens, Washington is unlikely to tolerate a PLAN facility near its forces. Such a presence would facilitate intelligence collection, enable gray zone tactics, and increase operational risks for US assets. Although Chinese bases are unlikely to serve as launchpads for offensive operations in the Middle East at present, the intelligence risks alone justify US resistance. A future shift in Chinese doctrine could make these installations more assertive tools of power projection.

For now, US diplomacy has prevented a Chinese military foothold, as demonstrated by the Khalifa Port incident. Yet the strategic logic behind Beijing’s efforts persists, especially as Gulf states seek broader partnerships. This tension will remain a central issue in US regional diplomacy. Still, host countries control what basing access entails. Washington might engage Gulf partners to establish red lines on PLAN activities, ensuring that a possible Chinese military installation remains below a certain threat threshold for US troops. This could be achieved by preventing the construction of infrastructure and the deployment of Chinese military equipment (high-tonnage warships, advanced air defense systems, and combat aircraft) necessary to project and sustain power in wartime. However, given the intelligence dimension and growing concerns about dual-use technology transfers and espionage, even minimal Chinese military presence may prove unacceptable.

President Donald Trump’s recent visit to the Gulf, including a prominent stop in the UAE, reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to close coordination with regional allies in strategic sectors, such as AI and defense. The proposed AI data campus in the UAE, alongside the intention to establish a comprehensive US-UAE Major Defense Partnership and procurement deals for CH-47F Chinook helicopters and F-16 components, speaks volumes about Washington’s strong willingness to counter Beijing’s growing regional influence. These commitments signal a US strategy aimed at reinforcing economic and military ties with its Gulf partners, thereby dissuading them from letting China establish a regional military footprint, even if it takes the form of lower-tier logistics facility.

An unchanging status quo

Despite growing Chinese naval activity, Gulf states appear reluctant to risk fallout from overt alignment with China. The frictions around Khalifa Port underscore the political cost of appearing to choose sides in the intensifying US-China rivalry.

In the short to medium term, China will likely continue a more discreet approach, favoring “de facto” facilities like Salalah and presenting its maritime posture as benign and commercially driven. Meanwhile, Beijing will deepen ties with regional states through soft military diplomacy and economic integration, avoiding direct confrontation with entrenched Western partnerships.

However, given persistent threats closer to home in the Indo-Pacific, China is unlikely to divert substantial military resources to the Gulf until it feels confident in securing its regional ambitions in Asia. Thus, while the Gulf remains central to China’s long-term maritime aspirations, its near-term military footprint is likely to stay limited, incremental, and calibrated to avoid triggering decisive Western pushback.

Leonardo Jacopo Maria Mazzucco is a researcher who focuses on the security affairs of the Gulf region. He is also an analyst at Gulf State Analytics, a Washington DC-based geopolitical risk consultancy. Follow him on X: @mazz_Leonardo.

The post China’s basing quest in the Gulf: Pipe dream or strategic reality? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Zier in Military Times analyzes US military deployment at southern border

bgalicia — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:06:01 +0000

On May 28, Caroline Zier, nonresident senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative, was published in the Military Times examining the Trump administration’s policy of using miliary personnel at the US southern border. Zier argues that the military’s “unprecedented” role at the border diverts time and resources from national security operations that “only the military can perform” like deterring China in the Indo-Pacific.

Previous administrations have […] supplemented Department of Homeland Security missions with [Department of Defense] support. But the US military’s role in border security has historically been extremely limited, for important reasons.

Caroline Zier

Fellow

Caroline Zier

GeoStrategy Initiative Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Defense Policy Security & Defense

The post Zier in Military Times analyzes US military deployment at southern border appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Experts react: Israel just attacked Iran’s military and nuclear sites. What’s next?

Atlantic Council experts — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 03:07:04 +0000

It’s just the beginning. Early on Friday morning in the Middle East, Israeli jets carried out dozens of strikes against nuclear and military sites in Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it “a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” adding that the operation would continue “for as many days at it takes to remove this threat.” Israel’s closest ally was quick to distance itself from the strike, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that the United States was “not involved.” As reports of the damage rolled in, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, was listed among those killed in the strikes, according to Iranian state media.

Israel’s operation came as US-Iranian negotiations on Iran’s advancing nuclear program seemed to have reached an impasse and just after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded that Tehran was in breach of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. So how might Iranian forces respond? What will this mean for Israel, Iran’s nuclear program, the US-Israel relationship, and a region already experiencing great upheaval? Below, Atlantic Council experts shed light on what happened and what to expect next.

This article will be updated as additional expert contributions come in.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Jonathan Panikoff: Four questions that could shape the Middle East’s future

Daniel B. Shapiro: Iran has never looked weaker

Shalom Lipner: Iran will seek to exact a heavy toll on both Israel and the United States

Landon Derentz: Sometimes you keep oil prices low for a reason

Matt Kroenig: An inevitability that will quickly de-escalate

Richard LeBaron: The US is getting dragged into a war it doesn’t want

Diana Rayes: Civilians are likely to be hit hardest in a prolonged regional conflict

R. Clarke Cooper: Iran apparently was given two choices

Daniel E. Mouton: This move will likely exacerbate Israel-US tensions

Kirsten Fontenrose: Will Arab states help defend against Iranian retaliation, or look the other way?

Mark N. Katz: Russia is not coming to Iran’s rescue

Perrihan Al-Riffai: This conflict threatens an already fragile global economy

Ellen Wald: Oil prices spike despite minimal material risk

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: How will strikes impact Israel’s war in Gaza?

Ariel Ezrahi: Netanyahu lacks the trust of his people to carry out this war

Nicholas Blanford: Hezbollah is likely to express restraint

Sarah Zaaimi: Jerusalem prepares for the long haul

Thomas Warrick: It’s not too soon to think about the postwar plan

Rachel Whitlark: Israel likely achieved its goal of setting back Iran’s nuclear program

Emily Milliken: Israel’s strike could unravel the US cease-fire with the Houthis

Joze Pelayo: Trump should work with Gulf countries on a diplomatic response

Yaseen Rashed: Israel is taking a major risk with its Begin Doctrine

Four questions that could shape the Middle East’s future

The questions after Israel’s sweeping strikes against Iran’s military and nuclear sites outnumber the answers. In particular, there are four key questions whose answers will help determine the trajectory of the Middle East and perhaps beyond—not only over the coming weeks, but potentially for the coming years:

1. What is the scale of Israeli military operations in Iran?

Israel’s focus now is on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as undermining Iran’s command and control and military leadership, with the goal of trying to mitigate the intensity of Israel’s response (which started last night with Tehran launching one hundred drones). The Israelis are going to continue strikes for at least the coming days. The expectation is that they will go after key Iranian nuclear infrastructure to delay Iran’s timeline to a nuclear bomb, even if Israel on its own cannot fully eliminate Iran’s pathway to one.

But is the scale of the attacks to come so large and diverse that Israel’s end goal is not only crippling Iran’s nuclear program but fomenting regime change? The targets Israel chooses will help determine the answer to that question, but a warning is also warranted. For years, many in Israel have insisted that regime change in Iran would prompt a new and better day—that nothing could be worse than the current theocratic regime. Iran is indeed led by a terrible autocracy that has undermined the growth of the country and tremendously hurt its own people. But history tells us it can always be worse. What is likely to follow a theocratic Iranian government is not democracy but Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–istan. Such a government is likely, at least initially, to be much more hardline than the current one. In such a case, Israel might find itself in a perpetual, ongoing, and far more intense war that is no longer in the shadows, as it has been for years.

Continue reading here:

New Atlanticist

Jun 13, 2025

After Israel’s strikes on Iran, these four questions could determine the Middle East’s future

By Jonathan Panikoff

The trajectory of the Middle East could be determined by how just a few critical questions are answered the coming days and weeks.

Iran Israel

—Jonathan Panikoff is the director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the US National Intelligence Council.

Iran has never looked weaker

Israel’s stunning, multifaceted strike against Iranian nuclear, ballistic missile, and regime leadership targets has thrown much into chaos: Iran’s ability to project power, Trump’s nuclear diplomacy, and US-Israel regional coordination.

Israel’s strikes lay bare the depth of Iran’s miscalculation following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack against Israel. Tehran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, and its key regional ally, the Assad regime in Syria, lie in ruins. Iran’s own state-to-state attacks against Israel in April and October 2024 produced little damage, while Iran suffered significantly from Israel’s October response.

Now, with that taboo also in the dustbin of history, Israel demonstrated its full penetration of Iran, and ability to wreak havoc across the Iranian system. Iran has never looked weaker, and its ability to respond meaningfully will be tested.

But the story does not end here. Israel pledges additional attacks, but Iran will now be supremely motivated to sprint to a nuclear breakout at hardened, underground facilities. The United States will surely assist Israel with defense against any Iranian retaliation. But Trump’s dream of a diplomatic resolution that ends Iranian enrichment appears dead. More likely, the US president will be faced with a decision on whether to use the United States’ unique capabilities to destroy Tehran’s underground nuclear facilities and prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. The decision will split his advisers and political base, amid accusations, and perhaps his own misgivings, that Netanyahu is attempting to drag him into war.

The repercussions on trust and coordination in the US-Israel relationship could be long lasting, with implications for future rounds of conflict with Iran, negotiations on the next US-Israel military assistance agreement, and the wind-down to the war in Gaza. An ‘America first’ president, and an ‘Israel first’ prime minister, who have each made fateful decisions with minimal consultation or taking each other’s interests into account, will coexist uneasily for as many more months and years as they both serve.

—Daniel B. Shapiro is a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. He served as US ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, and most recently as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy. He also previously served as the director of the Atlantic Council’s N7 Initiative.

Iran will seek to exact a heavy toll on both Israel and the United States

JERUSALEM—Years of speculation over the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities ended at approximately 3:30 a.m. (Israel time) on Friday when first reports of explosions in Tehran began to circulate.

The timing of the Israeli operation—which was authorized after Israel’s leadership concluded that the Islamic Republic was on the threshold of a dangerous breakthrough in its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability—took advantage of a rapidly shrinking window for military action, before relevant Iranian infrastructure became too advanced or well-protected. Trump’s declaration on Thursday that “I don’t want to say [an attack] is imminent,” together with expectations that Israel would stand down until (at least) after this weekend’s planned US-Iran talks in Oman, narrowed the opportunity for any element of surprise.

Israel’s initial targets have covered a wide spectrum, including, reportedly, multiple nuclear and other installations, as well as senior IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists. Israel’s intent is not only to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, but also to undermine its potential to inflict retaliatory harm on Israel and defend against subsequent waves of Israel’s offensive.

The degree of Israeli coordination with the Trump administration will be pivotal to how this crisis unfolds. Rubio’s cryptic statement that “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense” does not clarify the extent of US (dis)agreement with that determination, or exactly what prior warning Israel may have supplied to the White House. Notwithstanding, and despite Rubio’s clarification that “we are not involved in strikes against Iran,” Iranian threats to exact a heavy price from both Israel and the United States will thrust the latter into the eye of the storm. Forthcoming decisions by the White House on the contours of US engagement will have a direct impact on Israel’s ability to persist with this campaign.

—Shalom Lipner is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative who previously worked in foreign policy and public diplomacy during his time at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, where he served in the administration of seven consecutive Israeli premiers.

Sometimes you keep oil prices low for a reason

The Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may be reverberating across global energy markets, but the tremors are far more restrained than the stakes might have suggested. Brent crude rose more than 10 percent, yet the per-barrel price remains below eighty dollars, well short of crisis levels. The moment underscores how strategic foresight in energy policy can shape the contours of geopolitical risk in the world’s most volatile corridors.

While headlines are focused on missiles and centrifuges, a quieter story lies in the market conditions that made such a strike politically viable. Israel’s actions benefited from the political leeway made possible by Trump’s efforts to “bring down the cost of oil.” It’s not to say the strike wouldn’t have happened otherwise, but—as shown during Trump’s first term—when energy markets can shield consumers from the worst effects of a supply disruption, policymakers have far greater latitude to escalate.

In 2018, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and impose “maximum pressure” was rooted in a belief that oil markets could absorb the shock. Internal White House analysis forecasted only modest price increases, with US production gains and global spare capacity acting as a buffer. Crucially, while the Strait of Hormuz has long symbolized energy risk, it was—and remains—unlikely to be closed. Iran needs the revenue. This gave the Trump administration confidence to confront Iran without fear of major energy disruption.

Israel’s strike today reinforces that view, operating in an energy environment shaped by the same strategic logic. Oil doesn’t need to stay cheap forever—just long enough to change the geopolitical equation. Trump’s push to keep prices low may have done more than remake global energy flows—it may have helped lay the groundwork for a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

—Landon Derentz is senior director and Morningstar Chair for Global Energy Security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. He previously served as director for energy at the White House National Security Council and director for Middle Eastern and African affairs at the US Department of Energy.

An inevitability that will quickly de-escalate

As I wrote more than a decade ago, this was inevitable.

There were only three possible outcomes in the decades-long battle over Tehran’s nuclear aspirations: allow Iran to go nuclear, negotiate a permanent deal, or military action. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. A permanent deal is highly unlikely—as former US President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal proved. So, military action is the only viable option left.

There are three key facilities for Iran’s nuclear opponents to destroy: Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. A US strike would have been more effective as it could have meaningfully degraded all of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, while Israel can destroy the above-ground facilities. The underground facilities are difficult, but don’t count Israel out. No one would have predicted it could take out Hezbollah with walkie talkies last year. Did Israel conduct commando raids or other creative attacks on the underground facilities? If so, this will meaningfully set back Iran’s nuclear program.

As for the question of likely retaliation—Iran has few good options. Its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies are degraded, and Israel’s Iron Dome can demonstrably defend against missile and drone attacks. Iran is also afraid of a wider war, though those fears are misguided. This will de-escalate quickly, like Trump’s strike on Qassem Soleimani during his first term. The key questions are: What will happen in the coming weeks and months? Does Iran rebuild? Does Israel mow the grass? Or does Iran decide that it is not worth it to spend decades, and billions of dollars, and only have a pile of rubble to show for it?

—Matthew Kroenig is vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the Council’s director of studies.

The US is getting dragged into a war it doesn’t want

Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities was in direct defiance of Trump’s call for caution and negotiation. The United States has been seeking a negotiated solution—one that was not supported by Netanyahu’s government.

The question now is not whether, but how, the United States will be dragged into a war it doesn’t want, and that Gulf states fear. Iranian retaliation directly against Israel will not translate into non-involvement from Washington, as Israel will then be drawn into a spiral of retaliation and counter-retaliation—requiring US military supplies, intelligence support, and diplomatic cover.

So far, there is no evidence that Gulf states looked the other way as Israel used their airspace for the attacks, and this won’t be very difficult to confirm or deny.

Then the question becomes how to protect US troops in the region and how to come to the aid of Guif friends. Given the Trump administration’s close ties to the Gulf, as well as Trump’s personal admiration for certain Gulf leaders, the region will expect the US administration to provide any help they request.

—Richard LeBaron is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He is a former US ambassador to Kuwait and a former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Israel.

Civilians are likely to be hit hardest in a prolonged regional conflict

Just as corners of the Middle East were experiencing some semblance of stability, such as in parts of Syria and Lebanon, this latest escalation has the potential to reverse the region’s recent fragile gains. Beyond the immediate political and military consequences, the most profound impacts will be felt by civilians, particularly those already in humanitarian crises.

A prolonged disruption in regional commerce and air travel, alongside rising fuel and food prices, will hit displaced populations, host communities, and those living under the poverty line the hardest. In Syria, where around 90 percent of the population lives in poverty, any shock to commodity prices or aid delivery will be devastating. In Lebanon and Jordan, already overstretched in hosting among the world’s highest refugee populations, the economic fallout may further strain public services and deepen social tensions.

Meanwhile, the risk of environmental damage or public health crises from military action, including oil spills, water contamination, or infrastructure damage, could pose grave risks to civilians in both the Gulf and Iran. These are not theoretical concerns—they are real threats to food security, access to care, and basic human dignity for millions.

The United States has a responsibility to act in ways that reduce harm, avoid a full-scale regional war, and protect civilian lives. That means using its leverage not to escalate but to contain the conflict, pressing all parties, including allies, to prioritize diplomacy over devastation. Failure to do so will not only ignite another war in the region, but it will also exacerbate existing circumstances for fragile communities across the region.

—Diana Rayes is a nonresident fellow for the Syria Project in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

Iran apparently was given two choices

The Israeli preemptive strike is likely to disrupt Iran’s immediate capacity to develop a nuclear weapons program. However, it remains uncertain whether such an action will effectively deter the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions.

The Iranian regime appears to have been given two choices: abandon its nuclear aspirations or face a lack of intervention from the Trump administration if Israel decided to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel may have advocated for an earlier attack window, while the United States likely attempted to apply diplomatic measures. When diplomacy failed, the United States understandably announced an ordered departure for US embassy staff in Baghdad, while other US diplomatic posts in the region were placed on stand-by for ordered departure.

Regardless of when the Trump administration became aware that the Israeli strike was imminent, questions remain: Will this unilateral action by Israel sufficiently deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions? How might the regime in Tehran respond? And how will the United States and the Gulf states seek to contain further conflict in the region?

What is immediately clear is that economic and security conditions in the Middle East have become more volatile. 

—R. Clarke Cooper is a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and is the founder and president of Guard Hill House, LLC. He previously served as assistant secretary for political-military affairs at the US Department of State.

This move will likely exacerbate Israel-US tensions

The start of what is likely to be a multi-day series of Israeli strikes across Iran is an unprecedented exchange in a long history of attacks between the regional rivals. Most importantly, Israel is going alone against Iran. In previous instances, the United States and Israel maintained regular communication and a coordinated defense posture. This coordination was spectacularly successful in the defense of Israel—including in both April and October 2024, which saw unbelievably low casualties and damage in light of the hundreds of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles fired against Israel.

This time is different. Trump’s pursuit of Iran nuclear negotiations has created skepticism in Israel. The unilateral nature of US negotiations and the removal of the Trump administration’s pro-Israel proponents, such as former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and former Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Morgan Ortagus, could have only escalated this tension with Israel. These moves came alongside Trump’s avoidance of an Israel stop during his recent visit to the Middle East, as well as Netanyahu’s Oval Office visit in April, where he left empty handed on both tariff relief and Iran.

The beginning of unilateral Israeli strikes is a sign that the country feels that it must take action to ensure its own security. Regardless of what led Israel to take this step, it is likely to further exacerbate any preexisting tensions between Israel and the United States.

Finally, Iran will now feel obligated to respond. Depending on the degree of damage that Israel has inflicted, Iran may respond in a way that broadens the conflict and creates collateral damage elsewhere in the region. How this will end is an unknown, but as has been the case in the past, a speedier ending is likely to depend on the United States.

—Daniel E. Mouton is a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He served on the National Security Council from 2021 to 2023 as the director for defense and political-military policy for the Middle East and North Africa for Coordinator Brett McGurk.

Will Arab states help defend against Iranian retaliation, or look the other way?

Among the many lessons to be drawn from this operation is one about the importance of speaking truth to power. The IRGC makes a practice of minimizing its vulnerabilities in reports to senior leadership. Leaked IRGC documents from the past several years revealed overstatements of capability and omissions of setbacks, perhaps intended to deflect questions about the bang for the buck in their budget. Recently the IRGC was reassuring political leadership that its air defenses could withstand an Israeli strike. This may have contributed to Tehran’s decision to refrain from making a deal with the United States before Trump’s two-month timeline elapsed. This resulted in Israel’s assessment that diplomacy has failed and strikes were necessary. The generals behind those white lies were the first targets.

But now comes the expected retaliation. And the big question is: Will the states in the Middle East participate in Israel’s defense as before? As nuclear talks went nowhere, both Iran and the United States wanted to know, leading to tug-of-war diplomacy in the Arab world.

The United States wants Arab states to turn on missile and drone detection and mitigation systems and look out for munitions launched from Iran toward Israel, while Iran wants Arab states to consider looking the other way if it stages retaliatory strikes that cross Arab airspace. Arab states have a logical reason to rebuff Iran’s request. Munitions flown into a country’s airspace without coordination with its capital are violations of sovereignty and a threat to its people and infrastructure. Taking them down is such a no-brainer that the United States would likely conclude that any munitions not reported or mitigated by Arab states were intentionally ignored. Neither the United States nor its Arab partners want that kind of tension to arise.

—Kirsten Fontenrose is a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. She was previously the senior director for the Gulf at the National Security Council.

Russia is not coming to Iran’s rescue

Just as on previous occasions when Israeli forces attacked Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran itself, Moscow does not seem willing to defend its ally in Tehran. The Russian statement issued Friday was critical of Israel but gave no indication that Russia will take concrete actions against it or in support of Iran. Instead, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for all parties to exercise restraint and prevent further escalation. Most remarkably, the last sentence of the statement noted that “we would like to remind you of the US’s readiness to hold another round of negotiations with Iran on the Iranian nuclear program in Oman.” In other words, Moscow itself seems to be calling on the Trump administration to resolve the situation instead of promoting Russia for the lead role in this.

Moscow’s less than fulsome support (so far) for Iran must be causing renewed doubts in Tehran about what Iran is getting from Moscow in return for Iranian support to its war against Ukraine. On the other hand, there is nobody else Iran can turn to who would give it greater support in responding to Israel. Despite Iran’s threats about targeting American forces in the Gulf region, working with the Trump administration may be Iran’s best hope for restraining Israel. The Russian Foreign Ministry itself seems to be suggesting this.

—Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and professor emeritus of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.

This conflict threatens an already fragile global economy

Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear and military sites—resulting in the death of senior IRGC commanders—sparked immediate volatility in global energy markets. Brent crude jumped up as much as 14 percent intraday, briefly peaking at $78.50 before settling around $75, marking the sharpest spike since early 2022. While previous shocks during the Israel-Gaza war faded due to resilient oil infrastructure and global oversupply, this escalation is different: an oil exporter is now under direct attack.

Markets are pricing in a heightened geopolitical risk premium, especially amid Iran’s threat to disrupt oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries nearly 20 percent of global crude. If Iran’s oil infrastructure is damaged or tanker routes are disrupted, Brent could surge to $120–$130 per barrel. Though OPEC+ could ease some pressure, market uncertainty remains high.

At the same time, US tariff policies are weighing on global demand. The International Monetary Fund forecasts a 0.5 percent drop in global growth in 2025 due to ongoing trade tensions. This could counteract some of the supply-driven price spikes. However, if the United States joins the conflict—especially if nuclear talks collapse—the risk of sustained stagflation rises, threatening an already fragile global economy.

—Perrihan Al-Riffai is a nonresident senior fellow with the empowerME Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

Oil prices spike despite minimal material risk

As Israeli jets attacked targets across Iran early Friday morning in the Middle East, oil futures started rising. Oil benchmarks initially rose 6 percent, then 9 percent and up to 11 percent as the scope of the attacks widened. Oil prices generally spike in response to any conflict in the Middle East, even when neither of the parties involved are major oil suppliers. In this case, Iran is a significant oil supplier, Israel is not.

The reality is that the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf (about 20 percent of global seaborne oil shipments) is not materially at risk after Israel’s strikes, and it is unlikely to come under threat from Iran. That’s because of a few reasons: One, Israel isn’t targeting Iran’s oil production and export sites, so Iran derives no net benefit if it prevents Saudi, Emirati, Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Qatari or Bahraini oil from leaving the Persian Gulf. Two, should Tehran attempt to block Arab oil exports, its own oil exports would, in turn, be blocked. Iran can only benefit from stopping others from exporting if Tehran has no capacity to export oil itself. And three, Iran can’t stop traffic through the Strait of Hormuz for any significant amount of time because sea traffic can be rerouted around Iranian waters if necessary.

China, which purchases most of Iran’s crude oil, does not want to see the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf impeded. While China doesn’t have the naval capacity in the Persian Gulf to ensure this, it has become such a significant trading partner of Iran’s, that Iran cannot afford to see its trade with China disrupted. China is Iran’s largest customer and a significant customer of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. China will use the full weight of its economic power to ensure that oil from all Persian Gulf exporters to Asia is not disrupted.

Due to the severity of this attack, and the paradigm shift in diplomatic and nuclear relations that will result, oil prices may not retreat as quickly as they have after previous attacks. Much depends on when, how and against whom Iran retaliates. Regardless, it is important to remember that this is not the oil market of the 1990s and early 2000s. The market is well supplied from a variety of producers, with plenty of spare capacity should the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) choose to employ it. The United States is not beholden to foreign oil producers and its foreign policy should reflect that.

—Ellen Wald, PhD, is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center and the president of Transversal Consulting. She is the author of “Saudi, Inc.: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Profit and Power,” a book on the history and strategy of Aramco and Saudi Arabia.

How will strikes impact Israel’s war in Gaza?

The large-scale and devastating Israeli strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran have opened a new chapter in the post-October 7 Middle East world. In addition to the kinetic damage that they have caused, the strikes are a clear indication that Tehran was proceeding with acquiring enough technology and materials to procure a nuclear weapon, which would have changed the entirety of the Middle East’s security and geopolitical architecture.

Critically, there is the question of how these strikes impact Israel’s war in Gaza against Hamas and factions that are supported by the IRGC. Will Israel assassinate the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leadership in Tehran, along with other terror operatives? Will the attacks distract from Gaza, or provide the Israeli military with an opportunity to expand its assault on the Strip without international scrutiny?

Another dimension of the Iranian ladder of escalation is what happens in the West Bank, which is under the fragile control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Israeli military occupation. Does the IRGC have assets in the West Bank that it can activate to sow some chaos against the PA, in hopes of starting skirmishes with the Israel Defense Forces? Are there assets inside Israel who could engage in a targeted terror attack?

Regardless of the rhetoric, and while this is a serious escalation, it is unlikely, at least for now, that the wave of Israeli airstrikes will result in a massive, global, or even regional war like many have been warning for years. This is due to the fact that Arab countries, the United States, and even Israel want to be measured and deploy strategies to avoid a regional conflagration that leads to massive death and destruction.

—Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib leads Realign For Palestine, an Atlantic Council project that challenges entrenched narratives in the Israel and Palestine discourse.

Netanyahu lacks the trust of his people to carry out this war

The Iranian regime is a group of dead men walking. Iran’s reign of terror both internally and externally has been a destructive and destabilizing force since the Islamic Revolution, supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Diplomatic efforts over the years to stall Iran’s race to obtain nuclear weapons have not been a resounding success so far. Hence the recent Israeli attack does not come as a surprise.

That said, millions of Israelis distrust Netanyahu’s motivations and actions, whether as a peacetime or especially as a wartime prime minister. The Gaza war is a case in point. He appears to be prime minister bent on saving his own skin, aka saving his extreme right coalition to avoid facing trial for corruption and being held accountable for his government’s failure in connection with the October 7 attacks. He has done so at the clear expense of his country’s national security and democracy, as there is consensus among Israel’s security top brass and indeed the country that as prime minister Netanyahu needs to take responsibility. Netanyahu’s relations with Trump, the European Union, and most of the Middle East are at an all-time low, and there is unprecedented polarization within Israel stemming from Netanyahu’s divisive and inciting policies. This is not encouraging, to say the least, in this situation.

One only hopes that the United States, working with its sensible Middle Eastern allies such as the United Arab Emirates, will help to bring a sensible outcome to this explosive time.

—Ariel Ezrahi is a senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Programs, the architect of the Gas for Gaza project, and the head of the Energy Transition Sub-Committee for MENA2050. He also works in the climate finance space.

Hezbollah is likely to express restraint

With Israel launching an unprecedented wave of attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities and related assets, many eyes are turning toward Lebanon to see if Hezbollah will respond on behalf of its patron. For now, however, Hezbollah is likely to adopt a policy of restraint, and the Iranians may not call upon its proxy to strike back.

Until the recent fourteen-month war between Hezbollah and Israel, the Lebanese group was seen as a vital component of Iran’s deterrence architecture against the possibility of an attack on Iran’s nuclear program and on the regime itself. However, even before the latest war between Hezbollah and Israel, there were no guarantees that if Iran was struck by Israel, the United States, or a combination of the two that Tehran would call upon Hezbollah to respond with a punishing barrage of precision-guided missiles against targets across Israel.

That decision—whether or not to trigger a Hezbollah response—would have likely been based on the scale of the damage in Iran, and whether it posed an existential threat to the regime. If the Iranians calculated that the attack was survivable, then a Hezbollah response would be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Instead, Hezbollah would be held in reserve for the day the Iranians really needed it. That same calculus applies now, but with the added factor that Hezbollah’s military capabilities have been so degraded by the recent war that it no longer poses the same level of threat toward Israel. In addition, there is a strong sentiment of anger and frustration within the rank and file against Iran for, as they perceive it, letting Hezbollah down during the recent war by refusing to allow it to employ the full gamut of its military might to inflict real pain on the Israeli home front.

That mood of resentment may have been on subtle display during the recent visit to Beirut by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who reportedly held a frosty meeting with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem, and was accompanied by two relatively junior party lawmakers while paying his respects to the tomb of late Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.

For now, domestic calculations will likely help stay Hezbollah’s hand. However, that restraint could falter if the Israeli strikes against Iran continue and pose a direct threat to the regime.

—Nicholas Blanford is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs, covering the politics and security affairs of Lebanon and Syria.

Jerusalem prepares for the long haul

JERUSALEM—Despite the early signs of an imminent strike, with US regional embassies and military facilities evacuating a number of their staff, our plane landed in busy and bustling Ben Gurion airport undeterred by the news of a potential pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and leadership.

Just hours ago, senior experts and a US official at a Jerusalem dinner seemed optimistic that nothing out of the ordinary would occur and that the week’s developments represented a mere tactical escalation amid important nuclear talks. Analysts familiar with Israeli politics jokingly noted that if anything serious were to happen between Iran and Israel, it would need to be after next week due to Netanyahu’s son’s upcoming wedding. We later came to understand that the United States might have overestimated its capacity to deter their Israeli counterparts.

At 3:00 a.m. the peaceful Jerusalem ancient city walls were suddenly disturbed by piercing alarms calling everyone to take shelter in the nearest safe space. Our security team informed us that Israel had initiated a unilateral strike on Iran and that the United States was given a heads up about the events of the night. Sources reported that the Israeli war cabinet was gathering to discuss a Gaza cease-fire and hostage deal, and were surprised to discover that it was a briefing on the attacks. Some of them were sworn in writing to secrecy.

As we stand now, the mood in Israel is dug in for a long-haul operation to disable the capabilities of what they call the “head of the octopus,” after cutting many of its tentacles in Gaza, Beirut, and Damascus last year. Israel called thousands of its reservists back to duty, and Jerusalem is preparing for a potentially consequential retaliation from Tehran, as initial reports reveal substantial losses among the Iranian military leadership and nuclear scientists.

The Mullah regime’s response might not come immediately, as we witnessed with the 2024 events. Tehran will have to rally its defense systems after being drastically diminished, and now also face a crisis of leadership amid tonight’s high-level targets.

The United States, however, clearly tried to distance itself from the attacks and focused on prioritizing the safety and security of US facilities and personnel in the Middle East, although signaling a deadlock in US-Iranian nuclear talks. President Donald Trump is faced today with a crucial dilemma of either further decoupling from Israel and confirming US isolationism, or seizing a moment of weakness among Iran and its proxies by supporting Israeli ambitions to annihilate an enemy at the source.

—Sarah Zaaimi is a resident senior fellow for North Africa at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East programs. She is also the center’s deputy director for communications, overseeing strategic communications, editorial agenda, media relations, and social and digital marketing efforts.

It’s not too soon to think about the postwar plan

Israel’s strikes against Iranian command, nuclear, and military sites were not a warning shot. They were intended to start a change as decisive against the Iranian regime as Israel’s 2024 campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Importantly, Israel has no postwar plan for Iran beyond ending an existential nuclear threat. Israel should have thought this through months ago, but it really needs to think now about its post-war strategy. Regime change will not happen after an aerial campaign, no matter how effective. However much the IRGC was weakened by Israel’s strikes, including the reported death of senior IRGC military leaders, Tehran is still strong and coherent enough to prevent a popular “color” revolution. Regime change efforts from the United States and others elsewhere in the world should be a cautionary example of how hard this would be.

Israel is going to have to sustain a homeland defense strategy and keep striking nuclear, missile, and drone facilities in Iran. It also needs to develop, or work with the United States to develop, a workable strategy that gets Iran to end its nuclear threat to Israel. This will not be easy, and it will involve serious tradeoffs by Israel’s leaders, including how to end the war in Gaza on terms that will keep Hamas from coming back into power while giving the Palestinians a path toward reconstruction, dignity, and peace.

The best thing the United States can do now is to redouble its efforts to get a durable peace between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. Such a peace will require greater contributions by the United States, Arab allies, and Israel than anyone has been willing to make until now.

—Thomas S. Warrick is a nonresident senior fellow in the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy in the US Department of Homeland Security.

Israel likely achieved its goal of setting back Iran’s nuclear program

Early reporting suggests that the ongoing Israeli attack against Iran, Operation Rising Lion, has multiple, complementary goals. Israel appears to be aiming to cripple Iranian nuclear capacity and degrade Iranian retaliatory capabilities. To achieve these ends, Israel is conducting a combined air and intelligence operation to target nuclear installations, ballistic missile and air-defense sites, and key personnel in both the nuclear and military command structures.

We can understand this multipronged effort as targeting multiple threats to Israel’s security. First, successive Israeli prime ministers have described an Iranian adversary armed with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to Israel. As Netanyahu described in a video statement as the attacks were underway, the operation targeted both the Natanz enrichment facility (among others) and leading Iranian nuclear scientists. Targeting both the facilities and the key scientists should degrade and delay Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons. Second, Israel also sought to limit Iranian retaliatory capabilities by attacking ballistic missile and drone installations, as well as key individuals in the military command structure, including General Hossein Salami, the chief of the IRGC, and Gholam Ali Rashid, the deputy commander of the Iranian armed forces. There may be a third, larger goal beyond degrading Iran’s nuclear and retaliatory capacity: regime decapitation. Indeed, beyond targeting the nuclear infrastructure, the expansive attacks against the military forces and the IRGC could be suggestive of a larger regime-level goal.

Especially as events continue to unfold, it is difficult to determine operational success. Nevertheless, we can expect Israeli leaders to define success as delaying Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade uranium or advance to nuclear weapons, which Israel is likely to have achieved through damaging and destroying critical nuclear infrastructure and killing senior scientists. Further, to the extent that an eventual Iranian retaliation is limited because of Israel’s attack on key military sites and personnel or blunted by Israel’s own defenses, such developments may signify another layer of success. Of course, it is difficult to know exactly what an Iranian attack might have looked like had Israel not targeted key military facilities during this strike and earlier attacks on Iranian air defenses in 2024.

—Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense program in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Israel’s strike could unravel the US cease-fire with the Houthis

Israeli strikes on Iran risk provoking a response from Yemen’s Houthi rebels and potentially upending last month’s bilateral cease-fire agreement between the United States and the Houthis. While the Trump administration made it clear that the strike was a unilateral action by Israel, the Houthis could perceive the United States as complicit, as the rebels often conflate Israeli and US actions in their public messaging. Adding to those concerns, earlier this week a Houthi source threatened to retaliate if the United States or Israel struck Iran, following reports that American nonessential personnel and family members were being evacuated throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, the Houthis have been playing a more prominent role in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” since the October 7 attacks, particularly as other proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah faced leadership losses and setbacks. For the group, renewed confrontation could be an opportunity to reinforce its position within Iran’s network of allies and proxies and claim a major propaganda win—even if it means the end of the cease-fire with the United States.

While the Trump administration’s “Operation Rough Rider” imposed meaningful damage on the group, the Houthis have proven their resilience and ability to adapt in the face of continued strikes. They may also calculate that the Trump administration’s decision to pursue a cease-fire is a sign of limited appetite to re-engage in Yemen, especially given that “Operation Rough Rider” cost more than one billion dollars in a month and failed to degrade the Houthis, who have continued strikes on Israeli territory.

—Emily Milliken is the associate director of media and communications for the N7 Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

Trump should work with Gulf countries on a diplomatic response

Gulf States—mainly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—have no appetite for a regional war that involves Iran and would rather not be put in a place to choose between Israel and Iran. Their economic visions hinge on regional stability and on striking a balance to protect their interests, both economic and political. While their emerging role as mediators has enhanced their geopolitical role and diplomatic leverage, that role—now at risk—depends on stability for trust-building purposes when dealing with an actor like Iran.

Under the Trump administration, Gulf states have taken the front seat in driving the new regional order. However, Israel’s strikes, following the IAEA’s strongest rebuke in twenty years and Iran’s announcement of a third uranium site, seem to have temporarily disrupted the Gulf capitals’ preferred approach for diplomacy and placed them now in the crossfire for retaliation.

The Trump administration must rally its Gulf allies for an emergency meeting to coordinate a response aimed at preserving any diplomatic gains made so far. Oman, as a trusted intermediary, could be in a good place to lower the temperature and lobby Tehran against attacking Gulf capitals and US assets in the region—especially since Washington had no role in the attack. While this escalation carries serious risks, Israel’s attacks seem to have focused on the IRGC, which is responsible for continuously pursuing a destabilizing influence across the Levant and the Gulf and targeting US service members—making the IRGC a legitimate target. However, failure to deescalate would risk a broader regional conflict, the collapse of the Gulf-led peace process, the destabilization of global energy markets, and further disruption of key navigation routes in the Red Sea.

—Joze Pelayo is an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

Israel is taking a major risk with its Begin Doctrine

Israel’s launch of strikes on Iran demonstrates a continued invocation of its Begin Doctrine—its long-standing policy of pre-emptively striking nuclear facilities and weapons of mass destruction. Named after Israel’s former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the doctrine was first created in 1981 during Operation Opera when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad in a targeted attack.

Similar to Netanyahu today, Begin carried out the strike without US approval. Many feared an escalation if former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein were to retaliate, however, at the time, Saddam was already embroiled in a war with Iran and could not afford to respond.

Israel applied the doctrine again in 2007 when it covertly destroyed Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor in an operation it did not publicly acknowledge until 2018. Responding to the strike, then-President Bashar al-Assad denied the existence of the site entirely to avoid domestic and regional pressure to retaliate.

Now, for the third time, Israel appears to be invoking the doctrine, this time against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure, again without Washington. But unlike prior episodes, Iran is expected to retaliate, and likely with far greater intensity than previous strikes in April and October 2024—especially if Iran’s regional proxies join its retaliation to overwhelm Israel’s Iron Dome.

All eyes now turn to Muscat, where US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is still scheduled to meet with Iranian negotiators this weekend in what could be the final round of nuclear talks. The outlook for any deal appears bleak following the strikes. Should negotiations collapse, the region could face an escalation unlike anything seen in decades.

—Yaseen Rashed is the assistant director of media and communications at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs and a Libya researcher.

The post Experts react: Israel just attacked Iran’s military and nuclear sites. What’s next? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine is shaping the future of drone warfare at sea as well as on land

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:16:01 +0000

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is redefining military doctrine in ways not witnessed since the advent of air power and nuclear weapons in the first half of the twentieth century. For more than three years, both countries have been locked in a daily race to innovate that is leading to the increasing dominance of unmanned systems. This unprecedented drone war is being fought on the battlefields of Ukraine, deep inside Russia, and at sea. While Russia’s far greater resources favor Moscow, Ukraine’s sophisticated tech scene and vibrant startup culture are helping Kyiv to punch well above its weight.

Ukraine’s spectacular June 1 drone attacks on Vladimir Putin’s strategic bomber fleet at airbases across Russia made global headlines and have led to widespread claims that Kyiv has managed to “rewrite the rules of war.” However, Ukraine’s most remarkable accomplishments in the field of drone warfare have arguably been achieved thousands of miles to the south in the Black Sea.

Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Chief Kyrylo Budanov recently showcased the latest addition to the country’s expanding naval drone fleet, the Magura V7 unmanned marine vehicle. This domestically produced naval drone is armed with a pair of anti-aircraft missiles and is reportedly capable of operating at sea for days at a time while hunting Russian warplanes. According to Ukrainian officials, the Magura V7 has already proven itself in combat by shooting down two Russian Su-30 fighter jets over the Black Sea in early May. Budanov described the operation as an “historic moment.” It is believed to be the first ever instance of military jets being downed by unmanned naval platforms.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Last month’s destruction of two Russian warplanes was the latest in a series of remarkable maritime breakthroughs that have allowed Ukraine to gain the upper hand in the Battle of the Black Sea. When the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began more than three years ago, few would have believed such a turn of events was possible. At the time, the war at sea was widely viewed as a foregone conclusion. After all, Ukraine had no conventional navy to speak of, while Russia could call on the considerable might of the country’s aged but nonetheless formidable Black Sea Fleet.

This disparity was on display during a famous incident that took place on the very first day of the invasion. On the morning of February 24, 2022, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva missile cruiser, loomed up to Ukraine’s Snake Island and ordered the tiny Ukrainian garrison to surrender. “Russian warship, go f*** yourself,” came the iconic response. While this message of defiance captured the global imagination and became an unofficial slogan for the entire Ukrainian war effort, the incident also served to underline the apparent mismatch between the maritime capabilities of the two adversaries.

During the initial weeks of the war, Russian control of the Black Sea remained uncontested, with Ukrainian attention focused firmly on preventing amphibious landings along the country’s southern coastline. But even at this precarious point, Ukrainian commanders had their own offensive ambitions and would soon send a powerful signal that they were capable of fighting back at sea as well as on land. In April 2022, the Ukrainian Navy launched a bold missile attack on the Moskva, securing two direct hits and sinking the Russian flagship. The attack sent shock waves around the world and sparked fury among Kremlin officials. Little did they know that this was just the first of many stunning Russian naval defeats that would transform the military situation in the Black Sea.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Since the sinking of the Moskva, Ukraine has used a combination of domestically developed naval drones and cruise missiles provided by Kyiv’s French and British partners to decimate Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainian Navy officials claim they have managed to damage or destroy around one-third of Putin’s entire fleet, while forcing the remaining Russian warships to retreat from occupied Crimea to the relative safety of ports in Russia itself. This has severely limited the Russian Navy’s ability to operate in the Black Sea. By spring 2024, Britain’s Defense Ministry declared that the Russian Black Sea Fleet had become “functionally inactive.”

Ukraine’s stunning success in the Battle of the Black Sea has yet to receive the international attention it deserves. By breaking the Russian naval blockade of Ukraine’s seaports, it has allowed Kyiv to resume maritime exports and secure a vital economic lifeline.

Crucially, the Russian Navy’s humiliating retreat from Crimea has also made a complete mockery of the Kremlin’s so-called red lines and has demonstrated the emptiness of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling. The Russian dictator has long championed the seizure of Crimea as his crowning achievement, and has repeatedly hinted that he is willing to use nuclear weapons in defense of his conquests. But when confronted by the harsh military realities of Ukraine’s deadly naval drones, he withdraw the bulk of Russia’s fleet from Crimea with barely a murmur.

The Battle of the Black Sea is far from over, of course. While Ukraine develops groundbreaking new naval drones capable of hitting warplanes as well as warships, Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian seaports and targets merchant shipping carrying Ukrainian exports to global markets. The Russian Navy is also producing marine drones of its own, and is adopting defensive measures to protect the remainder of the Black Sea Fleet. Nevertheless, Kyiv’s Black Sea innovations are a reminder that Ukraine is an increasingly formidable military power in its own right and is shaping the future of drone warfare at sea as well as on land.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Putin’s peace plan is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood

Tetiana Kotelnykova — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:06:24 +0000

The memorandum presented by the Russian Federation during recent bilateral talks with Ukraine in Istanbul was described by Kremlin officials as a constructive step toward a possible peace agreement. However, the demands outlined in the document tell an altogether different story. Russia’s memorandum makes clear that Moscow does not seek peaceful coexistence with an independent and sovereign Ukraine. Instead, the Kremlin’s goal evidently remains the systematic dismantling of Ukrainian statehood.

One of the key demands detailed in the Russian memorandum is the requirement for Ukraine’s complete withdrawal from four Ukrainian provinces that Moscow claims as its own but has so far been unable to fully occupy. For Kyiv, this would mean abandoning dozens of towns and cities along with millions of Ukrainians to the horrors of indefinite Russian occupation. It would also dramatically weaken Ukraine’s defenses and leave the rest of the country dangerously exposed to further Russian aggression.

Handing over the city of Kherson and the surrounding region would be particularly disastrous for Ukraine’s future national security. This would grant Russia a foothold across the Dnipro River in the western half of Ukraine, placing Odesa and the country’s other Black Sea ports in immediate danger. The loss of Zaporizhzhia, one of Ukraine’s largest cities with a prewar population of around seven hundred thousand, is similarly unthinkable.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Territorial concessions are only one part of Russia’s comprehensive plan to undermine Ukrainian statehood. The memorandum presented in Istanbul calls for strict limits to be imposed on the size of Ukraine’s military along with restrictions on the categories of weapons the country is allowed to possess. Ukraine would also be banned from joining any military alliances or concluding bilateral security agreements with other nations. This would transform Ukraine into a disarmed and internationally isolated buffer state with no means to defend itself, leaving it entirely at Putin’s mercy.

Beyond the battlefield, Russia’s memorandum proposes a series of sweeping changes to Ukraine’s internal political and cultural landscape that would allow Moscow to reestablish its dominance over the country. Key demands include official status for the Russian language, the reinstatement of the Russian Orthodox Church’s legal privileges, and a wholesale rewriting of Ukrainian history in line with Kremlin narratives.

One of the most sinister aspects of the Russian peace proposal is the call for a complete ban on all so-called “nationalist” Ukrainian political parties. This rather vague wording is open to interpretation and could easily be used to silence Ukrainian politicians opposed to Russian influence. Given the Kremlin’s long record of labeling anything that contracts Russian imperial orthodoxies as “extremist” or “fascist,” the idea of outlawing “nationalist” political parties represents an obvious threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and the country’s democratic political system.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Moscow’s memorandum was presented at a time when Russia is escalating its invasion of Ukraine. In recent months, Russian drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities have increased significantly, leading to a sharp rise in the number of killed and wounded civilians. Along the front lines of the war, the Russian military is currently engaged in what most analysts believe are the early stages of a major summer offensive that seeks to break Ukrainian resistance. Russian troops are advancing in the east and have recently crossed the border in northern Ukraine to open a new front in the Sumy region.

The Ukrainian authorities cannot accept the punishing terms being proposed by Russia. Indeed, no sovereign state could do so and expect to survive. The real question is how the international community will respond. Russia’s memorandum is a blueprint for the end of Ukrainian statehood and the return of the country to Kremlin control. It makes a complete mockery of recent US-led calls for a compromise peace, and demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia has no interest in ending the invasion.

This should be enough to persuade Western leaders that progress toward peace will only be possible if they increase the pressure on Putin. At present, the Russian leader clearly believes he is winning and is confident of outlasting the West in Ukraine. In order to change this calculus and force a rethink in Moscow, Kyiv’s partners must impose tougher sanctions on Russia while boosting military support for Ukraine. In other words, they must speak to Putin in the language of strength, which remains the only language he truly understands.

Russia’s recent memorandum sends an unambiguous signal that Moscow is undeterred by the current Western stance and remains fully committed to its maximalist goal of erasing Ukraine as a state and as a nation. If Western leaders wish to avoid this catastrophic outcome, they must convince Putin that the alternative to a negotiated peace is a Russian defeat.

Tetiana Kotelnykova is a graduate student at Yale University specializing in European and Russian Studies with a focus on conflict, postwar recovery, and regional geopolitics. She is the founder of Brave Generation, a New York-based nonprofit organization that supports young Ukrainians affected by war and invests in the next generation of Ukrainian leadership. She also leads the Ukrainian Recovery Youth Global Initiative.

Recognizing the increasingly volatile international security environment that Canada finds itself in, Carney announced sweeping plans for the government of Canada to increase its defense spending to the NATO target of 2 percent of its GDP by March 2026, ahead of the goal set by the government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Canada’s lagging defense spending has long drawn the ire of the United States and other NATO allies and served as a target for US President Donald Trump earlier this year. Carney likely timed this announcement for this weekend’s G7 Summit, during which Trump will travel to Alberta, and in advance of the NATO Summit in the Hague later this month.

Aside from addressing short-term priorities with this month’s summitry, Carney also framed his announcement around the threats to Canada at this moment in history, stating, “a new imperialism threatens. Middle powers must compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they’re not at the table, they’re on the menu.”

What exactly is Canada doing on defense spending?

Canada currently spends 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense, but the low spending numbers do not tell the full story of Canada’s defense woes. Ottawa only has one operational submarine, out of four, and only half of the Canada’s maritime and land vehicles are operational.

Questions surround Canada’s ability to ramp up its domestic defense production at a scale needed to meet Carney’s new goals. The equipment used by the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada’s broader defense production as a whole are closely integrated with the United States. Despite this, Carney has pledged to diversify future defense spending away from an overreliance on the United States and look towards new partners, including Europe, as well as boosting its own capacity for domestic production.

Where will this increased spending go?

In fiscal year 2025-26 alone, the Carney government will invest an additional $6.5 billion across the Department of National Defence (DND), the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Communications Security Establishment (Canada’s signals intelligence agency). The Canadian government aims to increase the number of full-time armed forces members and reservists alongside investing in the civilian workforce. Part of the spending increase will also come from moving the oversight of Canadian Coast Guard from the Ministries of Fisheries and Oceans to the DND. The investment strategy calls for further modernizing Canada’s military capabilities with a focus on the Arctic, such as Canada’s recent acquisition of a new over-the horizon radar system from Australia. To further Canada’s domestic defense production and innovation, the government plans to establish BOREALIS, the Bureau of Research, Engineering, and Advanced Leadership in Science, which will focus on focus on furthering research in frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

How should the United States view Canada’s plans?

Washington has already welcomed Ottawa’s announcement, with US Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra posting on X that the plan is “an important step toward strengthening the Alliance and reinforcing our shared security.” However, a key part of Carney’s strategy is to diversify Canada’s defense investments and partnerships away from the United States. The purchase of the JORN radar system from Australia was Canberra’s biggest ever defense export and took the United States by surprise. Ottawa is considering bids from both South Korea and a joint German and Norwegian bid to purchase new submarines. Canada’s planned purchase of eighty-eight F-35 fighter jets from the United States is also being reconsidered, with the DND now potentially looking toward European suppliers.

While Washington will welcome Ottawa’s clear, if long-delayed, commitment to investing in its national defense and security, the era when Canada buys heavily from the United States is likely over. As Carney stated, “it is time for Canada to chart its own path and assert itself on the international stage,” and Washington should not take for granted its potential role in Canada’s defense future.

The post Carney’s ‘hinge moment’ is about more than just Canadian defense spending. What does that mean for Washington? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Many nuclear experts agree that the US needs new capabilities. Now they need to convince the Pentagon.

Paul Amato — Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:02:38 +0000

When it comes to nuclear weapons, does the United States need more or different nuclear capabilities than already planned? For decades, nuclear experts have debated and disagreed over the details of the US nuclear arsenal. But the past eighteen months have seen a growing convergence among nuclear deterrence experts around what is being called a “new American nuclear consensus.”

Citing the 2023 Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (SPC), the nuclear experts in this “consensus” camp posit that there is broad support for a host of actions regarding the future of the US nuclear arsenal. In their telling, this includes support for delivering the full existing nuclear modernization program, increasing warhead capacity within the legacy and the modernized nuclear force, and further adding both nonstrategic and strategic capabilities to the future force. These experts call for Washington to dispense with another policy review and start implementing the actions.

Many within the nuclear policy community, both Republican and Democrat, see this as a moment of agreement and resolve. In August 2024, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Vipin Narang said that the United States’ “current nuclear force posture and plan[ned] modernization program is necessary but may well be insufficient in the coming years.” However, it is not clear that the Trump administration, Pentagon policymakers, or the American people in general have bought into a commitment for additional nuclear capabilities.

Put me in the camp that believes more nuclear capabilities are needed—both in terms of quality and quantity. The United States and the West face a revisionist Russia that is a peer nuclear power, as well as a China that seeks to displace the United States as the leading world power and is on the path to equaling or exceeding the size of the US deployed nuclear force. Moreover, Washington cannot sleep on Pyongyang, which is continuing its nuclear buildup, posing unique deterrence challenges to the United States, South Korea, and the region.

It is imperative that those outside of the nuclear expert community understand why the United States needs new or different nuclear forces to confront these threats. First, any crisis or conflict with either Russia or China will immediately put the United States at risk of strategic deterrence failure against one and potential opportunistic aggression from the other. Second, to credibly deter an adversary from nuclear escalation, the United States needs more flexibility in its available responses than it has with its current and anticipated nuclear arsenal. Third, with the expected growth of China’s nuclear arsenal, the United States will need sufficient capabilities, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to continue to simultaneously deter Russia and China in the decades to come.

This is not the first time the United States has had to consider significant new nuclear investments. When US President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, a perceived decline in US strategic capabilities relative to the Soviets led him to announce—and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger to develop—a comprehensive plan to revitalize the entire strategic deterrent force. But there was little doubt at that time that the Reagan administration was intent on expanding US nuclear capabilities based on presidential campaign rhetoric and the administration’s early actions.

How broad is the new consensus?

The Trump administration has so far not indicated that it supports significant new nuclear investments. Although complying with congressional direction to pursue a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N), the Trump administration has not publicly advocated for expanding the existing nuclear modernization program of record. In February, US President Donald Trump said “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many.” And in March, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said, “So what we need to do now is just modernize. We don’t need to grow our nuclear stockpile but modernize our weapons.” Moreover, the pending presidential budget request is flat for the base defense budget. Any uptick in funding would likely come from the so-called reconciliation bill, which is more likely to be a one-off spending increase than the sustained support needed over years for new nuclear capabilities.

Moreover, it is not clear that nonnuclear experts and decision makers support the nuclear consensus. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) Commission generally endorsed the findings of the SPC in a July 2024 report, stating that “it is existential for U.S. national security that [the nuclear] modernization programs continue at pace to preserve the strategic deterrent.” However, not only did the commission not endorse additional nuclear capabilities, it stated that the modernization effort should not “come at the expense of modernizing and expanding the Navy and Air Force conventional forces.”

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to the new consensus is the fact that most Department of Defense (DoD) officials with responsibility for Pentagon strategy, force development, and budget decisions are generally not steeped in nuclear deterrence issues. These officials are less likely than many nuclear experts to see the risk of two simultaneous or near-simultaneous nuclear wars as realistic. They also tend to believe that the United States already has enough nuclear capabilities to deter multiple adversaries. Some may see any increase in US nuclear capabilities as license for Russia and China to further grow their forces, and many simply prioritize modernizing, expanding, and diversifying the nation’s nonnuclear capabilities.

When budgets are tight and it comes time to spend the next incremental dollar on military capabilities, one cannot count on the nuclear consensus to guarantee that it will be spent on new nuclear capabilities. Strengthening nuclear deterrence, therefore, will require convincing officials responsible for strategy, force development and budget decisions across the US government of the risk of nuclear deterrence failure and the need to prioritize, as appropriate, nuclear over nonnuclear expenditures.

Making the case

Three overlapping audiences must be convinced. First, there are nonnuclear strategists in the Pentagon and those who have primary responsibility for formulating the DoD’s annual budget requests, particularly the military services. Second is the Office of Management and Budget, which sets administration funding priorities. Third, there are senior administration leaders, including the secretary of defense and the president.

Arguments familiar to nuclear strategists must be recalibrated to convince these decision makers of the need for additional investment in nuclear capabilities critical to the United States’ overall deterrence and defense posture. To reach these audiences, nuclear experts should focus on three core arguments.

1. Nuclear weapons have a critical role from the start of a crisis

The first use of nuclear weapons, in the words of renowned strategist Herman Kahn, “is likely to be less for the purpose of destroying the other’s military forces or handicapping its operations” than to influence adversary decision makers. Thus, nuclear escalation will be a concern from the moment Washington confronts a nuclear-armed adversary in a crisis or conflict. Since any conflict between the United States and either Russia or China will most likely grow from a regional spark, their perceived stake in the conflict will likely be existential from the moment it begins. Both nations have developed doctrines and capabilities to match their anticipated stake in a regional conflict, including nuclear capabilities. They recognize that, when war comes, defeat along their periphery could be devastating to the future viability of their polity. Thus, from the conflict’s inception, nuclear capabilities are on the table. US leaders need to recognize this, as US success in conventional conflict will tempt adversary escalation, potentially earlier than anticipated.

2. The nuclear arsenal underpins the US ability to conduct conventional operations

If an adversary is tempted to escalate its way out of a failed or failing conventional conflict, it is critical that the president have at his disposal forces that provide him the tools needed to deter such behavior. To quote a phrase attributed to Victor Mikhailov, a senior official in the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons program during the Cold War, “Russia has a nuclear scalpel for every military problem in Europe.” As described in the SPC Report, such diverse nuclear capabilities offer “options to deter adversaries, control the escalation of potential hostilities, and counter U.S. and allied conventional forces.” The United States needs a similarly flexible—though not identical—toolkit so that the president has the ability to credibly and effectively deter Russia (or China, which is expanding its own nuclear surgical kit) from using one of their nuclear scalpels. And, if deterrence does fail, the president needs flexible tools to restore deterrence without making a general nuclear exchange inevitable.

The United States does not have that flexibility today—nor is it likely to have it once the nuclear modernization program is complete, even with the eventual deployment of SLCM-N. This should matter to nonnuclear strategists, as the goal is to deter adversary nuclear employment in the first instance and, if deterrence fails, to expeditiously restore deterrence in a way that preserves for regional commanders the freedom of action necessary to prosecute their conventional plans to a successful conclusion. Said another way, nuclear weapons underpin the United States’ ability to successfully conduct conventional operations.

3. China’s growing nuclear arsenal changes what the US needs

In a face-off against one nuclear-armed peer, there is a risk that the second will take advantage of a distracted United States to pursue its own regional objectives through military aggression. Should this occur, the United States will be faced with the challenge of simultaneously deterring two adversaries from conducting strategic attacks against the homeland during a time of war—adversaries whose forces pose an existential threat to the United States. As long as damage limitation and imposing intolerable costs remain central tenets of US nuclear strategy, the United States must maintain a credible capability to hold at risk what Russia and China value most, including their strategic forces.

But the United States’ ability to do so is on track to dissipate due to the growth of China’s arsenal and the fact that the number of US weapons available for counterforce targeting in the 2030s and 2040s is likely to be smaller than it is today. With a reduced ability to credibly deter adversary attacks on the US homeland, US decision makers may be hesitant to rigorously defend US global interests against nuclear-backed conventional threats, rendering any future US conventional superiority chimerical.

Each of these arguments demonstrates the importance of nuclear forces that are qualitatively and quantitatively sufficient to enable freedom of military action in a confrontation with a peer nuclear-armed adversary in the coming decades. Such a nuclear force is not what the United States fields today, and it is not the force that Washington will have when the currently planned modernization program is complete. To get there, more and different US nuclear capabilities are needed, which will require convincing the broader defense community of the importance of additional nuclear investments.

Paul Amato is the former director for nuclear deterrence policy in the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy. He is a retired Marine infantry officer with twenty-eight years of active and reserve service. Before his government service, he was a practicing lawyer in the private sector. The views expressed in this article are his own.

The post Many nuclear experts agree that the US needs new capabilities. Now they need to convince the Pentagon. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Five questions (and expert answers) about the new EU sanctions plan for Nord Stream and Russian banks and oil

Atlantic Council experts — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:53:27 +0000

“Strength is the only language that Russia will understand.” That’s what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Tuesday as she unveiled a proposed eighteenth European Union (EU) sanctions package against Russia for its war on Ukraine. Among the proposals are a ban on transactions with Russia’s Nord Stream gas pipelines, additional sanctions on more than twenty Russian banks, and a lowering of the oil price cap from sixty dollars to forty-five dollars. Approval for the package now rests with the twenty-seven EU member states, and some elements of the package, such as lowering the oil price cap, could prove contentious this coming weekend at the Group of Seven (G7) meeting in Canada. Below, our experts explain what was announced and what is at stake.

1. What impact would this proposal have on the Nord Stream gas pipelines?

This package could put the final nail in Nord Stream 2’s coffin, providing a much overdue, decisive vision for the future of Russian pipeline flows to Europe. Ending this zombie project debate once and for all also sends a clear message to global liquefied natural gas producers, which may be hesitant to expand partnerships with the European buyers as long as a relapse to Russian gas dependence is a possibility. This checkmate move from the European Commission still needs approval from EU member states, as well as watertight language on sanctions implementation to prevent caveats or exemptions. Moreover, the Commissions’s bold action on Nord Stream 2 brings the Commission’s Roadmap to fully end EU dependency on Russian energy closer to reality, just as the roadmap’s legislative proposals are expected later this month.

—Olga Khakova is the deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

***

The proposal is a welcome one to put an end to the questions about the restarting of the pipelines. The proposed rules would ban any EU operator from doing direct or indirect transactions for Nord Stream 1 or 2, making the operation of the pipelines impossible. More importantly, the proposal would end any rumors or quiet discussions around the future of the pipeline and shows the seriousness, at least in the Commission, around achieving energy independence from Russia. “There is no return to the past,” von der Leyen declared during Tuesday’s announcement.

—Jörn Fleck is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

***

After nearly two static decades of Germany’s Gazpromphilic foreign policy, and statements emerging in recent weeks from German politicians from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) indicating openness to a revival of Nord Stream, today’s EU announcement of Nord Stream sanctions is nothing short of astonishing. That’s because it amounts to a de facto approval by new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Since assuming the Chancellery, Merz has taken steps toward a true Zeitenwende that were lacking in Germany since that political approach to Russia had been first announced by his predecessor Olaf Scholz, with Merz stating clearly and resolutely in late May that under his leadership, the German government will “do everything to ensure that Nord Stream 2 cannot be put back into operation.”

Merz doubled down on this rhetoric while sitting next to US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, declaring Nord Stream to have been “a mistake.” Saying this next to Trump is especially important given recent reports that a US-based investor has sought to lobby the Trump administration to drop sanctions on Nord Stream to allow for American ownership of the pipelines. According to the investor, this move is an attempt to supposedly achieve the “de-Russification” of the projects—despite the logical incoherence of how such infrastructure could ever be truly “de-Russified” if it were still delivering Russian gas.

If the EU is able to successfully get this sanctions package through the gauntlet of member state ratification—no small task with the likes of Hungary and Slovakia waiting in the wings to go to bat for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energy interests in Brussels—it will be a major step toward finally ending Russia’s energy grip over European political and security interests.

—Benjamin L. Schmitt is a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy and Perry World House.

2. How much would lowering the oil price cap from $60 to $45 hurt Russia’s economy?

That depends on how effectively the new price cap would be enforced and where the general price of crude would fluctuate. The impact would probably be significant but not as big as it would be if the United States could find a way to limit third-country purchases of Russian oil, either through US Senator Lindsey Graham’s bill or in another (and more practical) form.

—Daniel Fried is the Weiser Family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former US ambassador to Poland.

***

Russia still relies on revenue from oil exports, so lowering the price cap could negatively affect how much money they can bring in. However, the price cap has been very difficult to enforce. In response to the price cap, Russia developed an expansive shadow fleet to export its oil, which created an additional challenge for Western sanctions enforcement authorities.

That said, lowering the price cap would be welcome considering the price of Brent Crude as of today, $67.24 per barrel, which is very close to the $60 price cap. When the price cap first went into effect in 2022, the price of oil was over $100 per barrel. Reducing the price cap is an acknowledgement that oil prices have dropped considerably since it was first introduced and reflects a commitment to restrict Russia’s ability to generate revenue.

—Kimberly Donovan is the director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. She previously served in the federal government for fifteen years, most recently as the acting associate director of the Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s Intelligence Division.

3. What else is in this sanctions package?

The most interesting aspect of this package is the “transaction ban” on “financial operators in third countries that finance trade to Russia, in circumvention of sanctions.” That sounds a lot like secondary sanctions, which historically have been controversial in the EU. If this passes, it could significantly strengthen EU sanctions by extending their reach.

—Kimberly Donovan

4. What are the chances of this proposal moving forward?

It’s worth keeping in mind that this is still just a proposal, and there is a long way to go before it is finalized. These sanctions proposals require the unanimous support of the EU’s twenty-seven member states, which, in and of itself, is no simple process of negotiations. The proposal will likely face two immediate hurdles from the likes of Hungary and Slovakia, whose respective leaders have delayed or played spoiler on the previous efforts for political leverage until their demands were met. However, the fact that there have been seventeen successful rounds of sanctions in the past suggests that solutions, however messy, incomplete, or last-minute, are possible. There is an important transatlantic angle as well. The EU wants to move together with the United States on Russia. So European holdouts will certainly not want to be seen as roadblocks should the Trump administration decide, for example, to push for further sanctions on Russia.

—Jörn Fleck

***

I don’t know how much has been vetted with Hungary nor what kind of pressure the Commission is prepared to put on Budapest if it attempts to block the proposal. But the Commission seems serious about ramping up pressure and announcing steps before the G7 Summit, where they will have a chance to obtain Japanese and Canadian support, and thus to present the United States with some decisions.

—Daniel Fried 

***

Brussels seems optimistic that the eighteenth sanctions package will pass. However, aspects of the sanctions package will need G7 support. This includes the proposal to reduce the price cap, which is why the Commission understandably announced the proposal in advance of G7 meetings this coming weekend in Canada. Further, support from Washington or lack thereof could sway how countries such as Hungary and Slovakia vote on the sanctions package.

—Kimberly Donovan

5. How might Washington react to this proposal?

That is a big question, and I can’t give a reliable answer. The European leaders at the G7 will have a chance to convince Trump that it is his own plan to end the war that the EU is backing, and that the United States ought to go all in to that end and agree to pressure Russia. But Trump, despite edging up toward imposing additional costs on Russia, has not yet done so, despite multiple opportunities and provocations from Putin.

—Daniel Fried 

***

It’s unclear how Trump himself will react to the proposal. But what the US president should see in this proposal is a Europe that is a willing and serious partner. The administration has made clear that it expects Europe to step up for its own security and for Ukraine’s. This is part of Europe’s response to do just that. European leaders have been united on pushing for action on Russia given Moscow’s continued intransigence on cease-fire talks and devastating attacks on Ukraine. This proposal is another indication that Europe is putting real ideas on the table to boost US and Ukrainian leverage with Putin.

—Jörn Fleck

***

Members of Congress may welcome this package, as the spirit is consistent with the bill Graham introduced to get Putin to the negotiating table. However, we’ll have to wait and see how Trump reacts considering the stalled cease-fire talks and escalating violence on the battlefield.

—Kimberly Donovan

The post Five questions (and expert answers) about the new EU sanctions plan for Nord Stream and Russian banks and oil appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Modern Ukraine’s national journey can be traced on Kyiv’s central square

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 21:18:16 +0000

Ancient Kyiv is drenched in more than a millennium of history and boasts a dizzying array of cathedrals, monasteries, and palaces dating back hundreds of years. However, the location most intricately associated with modern Ukraine’s national journey is far younger than any of these venerable landmarks and carried no particular spiritual significance until the very recent past.

Located in the geographical center of Kyiv, Independence Square is known to locals and foreign guests alike by its Ukrainian-language name, Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or simply Maidan. Over the past three decades, Maidan has undergone a dramatic transformation that has seen it emerge from Ukraine’s post-Soviet identity crisis via two popular uprisings to become the sacred ground zero of a nation forged in the crucible of revolution and war.

Today, Maidan is an obligatory point of pilgrimage on the itinerary of all visitors to the Ukrainian capital. People come to Maidan in order to honor those who have died in the fight against Russia’s invasion, or just to soak up the atmosphere of an iconic location that has witnessed some of the most consequential political events of the twenty-first century.

It was not always this way. When the modern square first began to take shape in the nineteenth century, it was a relative backwater in an elegant and aged city where the center of gravity remained firmly fixed elsewhere. Tellingly, when Ukrainian officials gathered in Kyiv on January 22, 1919, to publicly sign the unification act between the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic, they chose to stage this historic event on Sophia Square rather than Maidan.

As Kyiv rose from the ashes following World War II, the square became more architecturally impressive and gained in logistical importance, but it continued to lack the aura attached to the city’s true heirlooms. Instead, Maidan remained a fairly identikit Soviet public space noted for its large fountains and even larger Lenin monument.

Maidan first became associated with political activism during the dying days of the Soviet Empire in 1990 when it hosted a two-week student protest dubbed the Revolution on Granite that played a significant part in Ukraine’s independence struggle. At the time, it was known as October Revolution Square. Maidan would receive its current name on August 26, 1991, two days after the Ukrainian declaration of independence, but it would be many years before the square began to earn its current reputation as a genuine symbol of Ukrainian statehood.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

During the first decade or so of Ukrainian independence, Maidan was anything but inspiring. The square remained largely empty, with no monuments or memorials to celebrate the newly independent state. Instead, the cult of communism was replaced by crass commercialism. On the spot once occupied by Lenin, a giant TV screen was installed broadcasting an eclectic mix of adverts, pop videos, cage fights, and catwalk shows. Taxi drivers would line up nearby and watch absentmindedly while waiting for new fares.

High above Maidan, the skyline was dominated by the Hotel Moscow. In 2001, the Ukrainian authorities finally decided that this branding was probably inappropriate for a country looking to shake off the shackles of empire, and the hotel name was duly changed from Moscow to Ukraine. Likewise, a colossal Soviet hammer and sickle was allowed to loom large over Maidan until 2003, when it was belatedly removed from the facade of the Trade Union building. The continued prominence of the Soviet crest made a mockery of Independence Square and spoke volumes about the often ambiguous attitudes toward Ukrainian statehood that characterized the early post-Soviet period.

The first big turning point in Maidan’s transformation came following Ukraine’s November 2004 presidential election. Amid massive public anger over a crude Kremlin-backed bid to steal the vote, huge crowds flooded into Kyiv from across the country and congregated on Maidan, establishing a tent city and a round-the-clock presence. This protest movement lasted for over two months and came to be known as the Orange Revolution. Millions of Ukrainians participated. They eventually succeeded in overturning the rigged election and forcing a rerun which was won by the opposition candidate, representing a watershed moment in modern Ukrainian history.

Maidan itself was synonymous with the Orange Revolution and occupied a central position in the mythology that grew up around it. From that moment on, Maidan became not just a place but also an event. To stage a Maidan meant to organize a grassroots protest and hold power to account. This was a particularly terrifying concept for the neighboring Russian authorities. Dread of a Moscow Maidan soon began to haunt the Kremlin, feeding Putin’s obsession with Ukraine and laying the foundations for the horrors that were to follow. The Russian propaganda machine promptly adopted Maidan as a buzzword signifying wicked foreign plots, and continues to use it two decades later without any need for further explanation.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Nine years after the Orange Revolution, Maidan would be the scene of a second Ukrainian revolution. This time, the spark came when Ukraine’s pro-Kremlin president, Viktor Yanukovych, pulled out of a long anticipated EU association agreement and unleashed the riot police against students who objected to this drastic geopolitical U-turn. Once again, millions of Ukrainians flocked to the capital and gathered on Maidan. This time, though, it would not be bloodless.

With strong backing from Russia, the Ukrainian authorities took a hard line approach to the protests, leading to weeks of running battles on Maidan and in the surrounding streets. The nadir came in late February 2014, when dozens of protesters were shot and killed in the city center. This Maidan massacre brought down the Yanukovych regime. With his support base evaporating, the disgraced Ukrainian president fled to Russia. Days later, Putin responded by invading Crimea. Russia’s war to extinguish Ukrainian statehood had begun.

The tragic events of February 2014 had a profound impact on Ukraine’s collective psyche and served to consecrate Maidan in the national imagination. Up until that point, the square had regularly hosted public holidays, pop concerts, and Christmas fairs. In the aftermath of the killings, such events were moved to other locations in the Ukrainian capital. Maidan itself would now be reserved for the most somber and significant occasions in the life of the nation, such as the funerals of soldiers, vigils for Ukrainians held captive in Russia, and memorials marking important Ukrainian anniversaries.

Since 2022, Maidan’s transformation has gained further momentum amid the shock and trauma of Russia’s full-scale invasion. During the initial stages of the war, people began planting flags on the square in memory of fallen soldiers. This impromptu memorial has since expanded organically to become a sea of flags and portraits commemorating those who have lost their lives in the defense of Ukraine. It is an authentic grassroots tribute that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Maidan.

As Russia’s invasion has unfolded, Maidan’s role as the principal site for wartime mourning and reverence has served to confirm the square’s position at the heart of modern Ukraine’s national story. There could hardly be a more fitting location. After all, Vladimir Putin launched the current war because he viewed the emergence of an independent Ukraine as an intolerable threat to his own authoritarian regime and a potential catalyst for the next stage in Russia’s long retreat from empire.

Maidan embodies Putin’s darkest fears. The Russian dictator’s goal remains the destruction of Ukraine as a state and as a nation, but he is acutely aware that the country is slipping inexorably out of the Kremlin orbit. This is nowhere more evident than on Kyiv’s central square, which has become the ultimate symbol of Ukraine’s escape from empire and embrace of an independent identity.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Ukrainian innovations are redefining the role of drones in modern war

Vitaliy Nabukhotny — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:34:16 +0000

Ukraine’s audacious recent drone strikes on Vladimir Putin’s bomber fleet at airbases across Russia have generated global headlines and fueled a lively debate over the implications of the attack. Many have hailed this highly successful Ukrainian operation as a watershed moment in military history, leading to claims in some quarters that Ukraine is now “redefining modern warfare.”

This international attention is understandable. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is widely recognized as the world’s first drone war, with Ukrainian innovation playing a key role in defining the role of drones in twenty-first century military operations. But while most analysis tends to focus on spectacular attacks like the recent decimation of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, the Ukrainian military is actually using drones for a far wider variety of functions. Ukraine’s drone experience is unprecedented and provides a range of important lessons for military commanders around the world.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The primary role of drones in modern warfare is as weapons. Over the past three years, first person view (FPV) drones have become a ubiquitous feature of the contemporary battlefield and are believed to be responsible for the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian casualties. This is changing the way the war is fought. Any vehicles operating close to the front lines must now rely on jamming devices, with many also favoring the additional protection of so-called “cope cage” coverings to shield against drone attacks. With larger groups of infantry deemed too vulnerable to drone strikes, attacks are typically carried out by small groups, often using highly mobile transport such as motorbikes or buggies.

Ukraine has also pioneered the use of drones and accompanying software to perform surveillance tasks mapping out the battlefield and providing real-time situational awareness of enemy deployments. This reconnaissance capability is not new in itself, but has undergone significant upgrades in recent years. Accurate and up-to-date information allows commanders to make informed decisions quickly, improving the effectiveness of military operations.

Beyond the battlefield, Ukraine has also transformed international understanding of drone warfare at sea. Since 2022, Ukrainian naval drones have succeeded in sinking or damaging around one-third of Russia’s entire Black Sea Fleet, forcing the remainder of Putin’s warships to retreat from Russian-occupied Crimea to the relative safety of Russia’s own Black Sea ports. Most recently, Ukraine claimed to have used naval drones to shoot down two Russian warplanes over the Black Sea.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In addition to strike and surveillance functions, Ukraine has also employed drones in logistical roles. The Ukrainian army uses both aerial and ground-based unmanned systems to deliver ammunition, food, medicine, and other supplies to troops operating in dangerous or inaccessible areas, thereby reducing the need to expose personnel to hostile environments. Drone-based solutions can also potentially facilitate the evacuation of the wounded when manned rescue is deemed to be too risky.

One of the most creative Ukrainian uses of drones on the battlefield has been to help take surrendering Russian soldiers prisoner. This method reduces the need for physical engagement with enemy troops and therefore limits the risks to the Ukrainian side. Drones are used to give instructions using printed messages or via loudspeakers to guide enemy soldiers and indicate safe directions that will allow them to surrender without coming under fire.

Ukrainian unmanned systems are also playing an important role in efforts to document Russian war crimes. Drones are able to record the time, location, and nature of potential crimes, along with the identity of the perpetrators in some cases. Over the past three years, Ukrainian drones have captured evidence of potential war crimes including the execution of unarmed POWs and attacks on civilians. This footage can be used in future prosecutions and increases the chances that those responsible for war crimes in Ukraine will be held accountable.

The growing role of drones in warfare creates a range of challenges in terms of the accepted norms governing military operations. With this in mind, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence has drawn up and issued internal guidelines for drone operators and legal teams to ensure adherence to the laws of armed conflict. These guidelines incorporate real-world combat scenarios to help drone operators understand how to treat categories such as medical personnel, retreating enemy troops, and those engaged in the evacuation of the wounded. This initiative is a step toward establishing broader global standards for responsible drone warfare.

Ukraine’s unique experience of drone warfare offers valuable insights that will shape military doctrines for many years to come, while also helping to define international standards for the use of drones in a military context. It is already clear that drones are transforming the battlefield in ways the evoke the twentieth century rise of air power. As drone technologies continue to advance, Ukraine is likely to remain a key player in this new wave of military innovation.

Vitaliy Nabukhotny is a human rights lawyer and external legal advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence’s Legal Department.

Why DDR programs are the missing link to Syrian stability

Muhsen al-Mustafa — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:58:33 +0000

The Syrian landscape after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime faces a web of complex and interrelated political, security, economic, and social challenges. The transitional government is striving to build a fundamentally different state and to launch a comprehensive reconstruction process, supported by growing international engagement, particularly following US President Donald Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria. While this shift has opened new opportunities for the government to benefit from international reengagement, it has also brought forth more intricate domestic obligations, foremost among them the launch of Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) programs, alongside broader Security Sector Reform (SSR).

In this context, the absence of DDR programs emerges as one of the most pressing challenges. The need for such programs remains critical to ensuring stability, preventing renewed unrest or a slide into violence, and providing adequate protection for all Syrian communities, most notably the Alawite community, which faces particularly delicate circumstances following the mass demobilization of military personnel from within its ranks. DDR efforts would also play a key role in creating a safe environment for the return of refugees.

Activating DDR programs has become an urgent necessity in light of lifting sanctions and renewed international momentum to support stability in Syria. These programs are critical to addressing the fragile conditions of communities that have long depended on military structures for their livelihoods and collective identity, chief among them the Alawite community. Without fair and sustainable institutional solutions, the risk of relapse into rebellion or renewed violence remains high, undermining prospects for national reconciliation.

Alawites: From army to militia

The Alawite community—the Syrian minority group to which the Assad family belonged— formed the backbone of the military and security apparatus under the former regime. With its collapse, hundreds of thousands of soldiers—most of them Alawite—were demobilized without being offered alternative pathways, particularly amid a deteriorating economic situation and the near-total absence of employment opportunities.

The transitional government limited its response to conducting settlement processes and disarming light and medium weapons, leaving the heavy ones on the battlefields, without establishing a comprehensive institutional framework capable of absorbing the large number of demobilized personnel, or providing them with viable alternatives to prevent their descent into armed violence—an undertaking that, even if politically desired, currently lies beyond the government’s capacity.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Moreover, some former Alawite officers and commanders established armed militias that launched violent operations in early March 2025. These actions triggered retaliatory violence, resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians—including Alawites, Sunnis, and others from Syria’s coastal communities—as well as hundreds of security and military personnel. The clashes have entrenched a persistent state of insecurity that continues to this day.

While the regime’s remnant leaders may be driven by their own motives—such as evading transitional justice and exploiting sectarian rhetoric to portray themselves as protectors of the Alawite community against the transitional government—the absence of DDR programs continues to fuel these militias with new recruits. This dynamic has turned the situation into a pattern of intermittent rebellion and has opened the door for regional actors like Iran to intervene and exacerbate instability. Lasting stability in Alawite-majority areas—and elsewhere—will remain out of reach unless sustainable solutions are introduced to economically and socially reintegrate these individuals into the fabric of the new state.

DDR programs as a pathway to stability

Amid growing international openness and willingness to support Syria’s stabilization, DDR programs stand out as essential pillars for building lasting peace. Their value lies in their capacity to curb the proliferation of weapons and reduce the risk of internal conflict, particularly in areas that have experienced sectarian or tribal tensions. They help address the root causes of conflict by offering former combatants viable alternative pathways.

Similar programs were backed by the UN’s Development Program (UNDP) in Liberia and Colombia based on United Nations (UN)- integrated DDR standards (IDDRS). Implemented in parallel with a transitional justice process, these programs serve as a foundational mechanism. For example, in Colombia and Liberia, DDR served as a structured mechanism to transition combatants to civilian life. Comparable DDR programs in Liberia, Colombia, and South Sudan have demonstrated the importance of linking disarmament with social reintegration in reducing long-term conflict risks.

In line with these existing international standards, DDR programs follow a clear sequence: voluntary or mandatory disarmament, vocational and social rehabilitation, and eventual reintegration into civilian life or institutional structures. Their importance lies in their ability to reduce the likelihood of renewed violence, particularly in areas that have experienced sectarian tensions, such as Syria’s coastal region.

In the Syrian context, the issue of demobilized fighters from the Alawite community and others within a unified national framework helps foster trust among Syria’s diverse components, ensuring that no group feels targeted based on its political or sectarian background. These programs would also demonstrate the transitional government’s seriousness in addressing security and humanitarian concerns, laying the groundwork for attracting international support and securing the funding necessary to implement development and reconstruction plans.

The impact of DDR extends beyond internal stabilization; it also serves as a gateway to creating a secure environment that can rebuild refugee confidence in the safety of return. In doing so, it helps reposition Syria as a safe country, capable of reintegrating its citizens, both inside and abroad, under dignified and voluntary conditions.

A new opportunity, and and an urgent task

With the end of Western sanctions on Syria and the return of external support to the state-building process, the transitional government now faces a rare opportunity to address the imbalances of the post-conflict period. However, this international opening does not automatically guarantee stability unless accompanied by serious domestic measures, chief among them, the launch of DDR programs.

The current challenge is not only the lack of funding but also the absence of operational structures capable of absorbing such programs, weak institutional coordination, and growing security risks posed by uncontrollable local forces from the remnants of the regime or civil groups with a revolutionary background. In this context, DDR programs become a central tool not only for restoring security but also for rebuilding trust between the state and society and paving the way for genuine national reintegration.

Although the Western-led international community continues to stress the importance of protecting minority communities in Syria, particularly the Alawites, the core challenge now lies not only in the lifting of international restrictions but in the transitional government’s ability to translate that commitment into effective policy. Without creating institutional and economic environments capable of absorbing demobilized fighters and reintegrating them into society, protection efforts will remain vulnerable to failure, and stability will remain fragile, regardless of available resources or declared intentions. In this space, the government’s seriousness about rebuilding the state will be truly tested.

A “collaborative fund” as a practical solution

With international willingness to support Syria’s stabilization now in place, the need arises for establishing a “Collaborative Support Fund” dedicated to financing DDR programs, similar to models implemented in Iraq, Sudan, Gaza, and others. This fund would operate under the direct supervision of the Syrian government and in partnership with neutral third parties. It would aim to manage financial resources for DDR programs transparently and efficiently, ensuring their use in the rehabilitation and economic and social reintegration of former combatants, including marginalized groups such as demobilized Alawite fighters who may fall outside the scope of transitional justice mechanisms.

A portion of the fund could also be allocated to support other conflict-affected groups, such as wounded opposition fighters, thereby promoting balanced justice and contributing to repairing Syria’s social fabric. This mechanism would also create a broader space for partnership, allowing both Arab and Western countries to contribute within an integrated framework subject to international oversight, thus minimizing the risk of political manipulation or misuse of funds.

In this context, Arab states—particularly those in the Gulf—could be crucial in filling key funding and technical gaps, especially as many have adopted more open positions toward the new Syrian administration. The Gulf states have previously contributed to stabilization funds in Yemen and Iraq, offering a precedent for such involvement in Syria’s DDR efforts. With their considerable financial capabilities and accumulated experience, Arab countries are well-positioned to serve as active partners in funding DDR programs. However, the success of this role will remain contingent on close coordination with the wider international community.

Stability hanging in the balance

Syria cannot fully turn the page on its conflict unless realistic guarantees are put in place to prevent the resurgence of violence or the drift of demobilized fighters toward rebellion. As such, the post-Assad reconstruction process cannot be completed without fundamentally addressing a set of sensitive issues, chief among them the sanctions regime and the critical role of DDR programs in laying the foundations for stability and ensuring the protection of minority groups, both as a domestic imperative and an international responsibility.

However, DDR programs are not a silver bullet despite their strategic importance. Their success depends on a supportive political, economic, and social environment, ensuring sustainability. This requires an integrated framework of transitional justice, economic revitalization, and inclusive participation by all societal components in shaping the country’s future. Without such coherence, DDR initiatives risk failure, co-optation, or losing their intended role as tools for building trust and long-term stability.

The current opportunity—bolstered by broad international support—must not be wasted. Failure to activate these pathways would represent a serious setback for Syria’s future, potentially reopening the door to renewed conflict and the resurgence of extremism. Conversely, if the transitional government succeeds in operationalizing DDR programs and mobilizing international support to rehabilitate society and kickstart development, it could mark a pivotal turning point in Syria’s modern history. In doing so, the country would be able to protect and advance minority rights within a new state that exercises its authority fairly and equitably under the principles of citizenship, just like for all other Syrians. This would pave the way for a renewed social contract through which Syrians can once again believe in their homeland and a shared, hopeful future.

Muhsen al-Mustafa is a researcher at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies. He can be found on X @MuhsenAlmustafa.

The post Why DDR programs are the missing link to Syrian stability appeared first on Atlantic Council.

China is carrying out ‘dress rehearsals’ to take Taiwan. Here’s how the US should respond.

Adam Kozloski — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 20:40:52 +0000

Click on the banner above to explore the Tiger Project.

In a recent speech at the 2025 Shangri-la Dialogue, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the audience that China’s attempt to conquer Taiwan by force “could be imminent.” The possibility of such a rapid escalation stems from China’s increased military activity around Taiwan, which has made distinguishing exercises from true military action nearly impossible. According to Admiral Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), Chinese military pressure on Taiwan has reached a “rapid boil.” How rapid? In his April testimony before the Congressional Armed Services Committees, Paparo said there has been a 300 percent annual increase in Chinese military pressure against Taiwan. He later noted that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is “stretching their legs” to meet President Xi Jinping’s 2027 military readiness goal of being capable of taking Taiwan by force.

As China’s increasing operational tempo has reduced the United States’ ability to distinguish military action from an exercise, US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) has revealed reduced capacity and greater cracks in the United States’ sustainment strategy. This combination of reduced warning and response poses serious risks to the United States’ ability to deter a forceful resolution across the Taiwan Strait, a key objective of the Trump administration.

‘Dress rehearsals for forced unification’

While China’s 300 percent increase in pressure is alarming, this development unfortunately reflects a broader, consistent trend of escalating PLA activities, including persistent crossings of the Taiwan Strait’s median line. According to data from Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense, PLA sorties across the median line in the Taiwan Strait, the Taiwanese-declared dividing line between Taiwan and China, have increased from 953 incidents in 2021 to 3,070 in 2024.

Taiwan, with a leaner force, must either dedicate an increasing number of resources toward incursion responses or cede the declared dividing line to the PLA, allowing PLA forces to move even closer to Taiwanese territory unchallenged, reducing warning time. The PLA’s efforts are also a deliberate attempt by Beijing to cognitively shift Taiwan’s perception of actions in the strait, creating “the new normal” of military activity in its immediate vicinity, which could reduce reaction time in a real invasion.

Paparo underscored the seriousness of this escalation in his recent testimony, stating: “These are not just exercises—they are dress rehearsals for forced unification.” Earlier this year, he went even further on the record, warning that the increased operational tempo has brought INDOPACOM “very close to that [point] where on a daily basis the fig leaf of an exercise could very well hide operational warning.”

Placing forward forces

The erosion of operational warning time means INDOPACOM and US decision makers could have less time—and less certainty—to respond if China initiates military action against Taiwan. As the PLA continues to degrade US and Taiwanese abilities to detect tactical and operational indicators of conflict, China’s geographic advantage across the Pacific becomes even more acute.

According to the US Seventh Fleet, forward-deployed forces cuts an average of seventeen days in transit time, compared with continentally-based forces. While exact times are dependent on individual capabilities and other conditions, most conventional options for sea-based transport are slower and vulnerable to China’s expanding anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) envelope. Airlift options to support Taiwan with asymmetric capabilities, such as Patriot batteries or Harpoon missiles to destroy high-value targets, are similarly constrained by the sheer scale of the Pacific and limited US airlift capacity.

Paparo’s April testimony highlighted these logistical realities. He revealed that it took seventy-three flights to rapidly move a single Patriot battalion from United States Forces Korea’s area of operations to US Central Command. Furthermore, TRANSCOM has revealed to the Congressional Armed Services Committees that the C-5M “Supergalaxy,” a critical aircraft for airlift operations, had a reduced mission-capable rate of 46 percent in 2024, a 6 percent decrease from 2023. Even assuming efficiency improvements, there remain significant geographic constraints on how quickly the United States can surge critical defensive systems across theaters with its current airlift capabilities.

Moreover, Paparo’s admission—coupled with his direct warning that “lift requirements must be paid attention to”—amounts to a direct appeal for Congress to shore up TRANSCOM’s resources. The current situation not only strains INDOPACOM’s ability to support Taiwan if US policymakers choose to intervene, but it also risks undermining the defense of US forces and territories in the region. Moving critical assets westward—from the continental United States to Hawaii, from Hawaii to Guam, and onward to Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—will face time and lift constraints, as well as the active interference of PLA forces once conflict begins. The enemy gets a vote—and it is unlikely that the PLA would allow US or allied air and sea lift into the theater unopposed once hostilities are underway. This makes the window between when China has decided to initiate conflict and when conflict actually begins critical.

As operational warning time continues to erode—and with TRANSCOM investments years away from fully materializing—INDOPACOM must increasingly rely on forces already positioned west of the International Date Line (IDL) for both deterrence and, if necessary, combat operations against Chinese military aggression. TRANSCOM’s revelation that 85 percent of the United States’ combat power remains in the lower forty-eight states indicates that much more work needs to be done in placing forces forward.

Three next steps for the Trump administration

Given these growing challenges, US policymakers must urgently consider three steps to strengthen forward presence and responsiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

1. Increase US military presence in partner nations through SOFAs

Hegseth recently declared that improving the United States’ forward defense posture is the first action that the Trump administration will take in strengthening deterrence. In order to ensure this action, the Department of Defense and the Department of State should leverage the frameworks of existing Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) to expand the US military presence west of the IDL. While SOFAs primarily govern the legal status of US forces abroad, supplementary agreements, implementing arrangements, and diplomatic notes provide the flexibility to adjust troop levels and operational footprints.

Some groundwork for such expansions has already been laid. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Defense announced plans to add additional personnel to US Forces Japan (USFJ) to transition it from an administrative headquarters to a war-fighting command, although these initial moves appear focused only on the USFJ headquarters staff itself. Nevertheless, they suggest an emerging willingness by Tokyo to consider hosting additional operational forces.

Other allies, such as Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines, offer additional opportunities for expanded presence through rotational deployments, pre-positioning of equipment, and basing initiatives. Opportunities to flex the most capable and necessary US assets, like the recent inaugural deployment of NMESIS, the Marine Corps mobile anti-ship missile system, to the Luzon Strait during an exercise with the Philippines, is one such example. Deploying US F-35 aircraft to the Korea Peninsula, potentially permanently, is another. Building on these relationships will be crucial to ensuring sufficient warfighting capability in theater for deterrence and crisis response.

2. Increase the tempo of US campaigning in the Indo-Pacific

Campaigning, or the use of “normal and routine military activities in conditions short of conflict to achieve strategic objectives,” has long served as an effective way to temporarily increase US force presence in critical regions. As Paparo has emphasized, regular and visible military campaigning in the Indo-Pacific remains essential to maintain credible deterrence and operational readiness.

As China accelerates its operational tempo around the Taiwan Strait, the Trump administration should consider adopting a policy of proportional response, increasing US campaigning activities in line with PLA escalations. A proportional approach would degrade China’s understanding of US operational patterns—complicating Beijing’s planning—and ensure that combat-capable forces are present west of the IDL when and where they are needed most.

However, sustaining a higher operational tempo will require significant diplomatic engagement and substantial logistical and financial resources, in addition to wear on the warfighters themselves. Despite these factors, a nonlinear 300 percent increase in Chinese military pressure over the past year demands a bold response. US President Donald Trump’s proposed one-trillion-dollar defense budget should prioritize funding for increased campaigning in the Indo-Pacific, recognizing that higher operational tempo directly improves both US lethality and readiness—two core criteria for strengthening deterrence under this administration.

One example of how increased campaigning enhances lethality is through its training value for both US and partner-nation forces. Campaigning-based exercises allow US warfighters to refine tactics, integrate new systems, and adapt to austere or degraded operational environments. Simultaneously, joint training with allies and partners strengthens the integration of weapon systems and military forces, reinforces defense diplomacy, and enhances collective deterrence across the region.

3. Increase US military presence in COFA nations

The recently renegotiated 2024 Compacts of Free Association (COFA) with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands reaffirm the United States’ responsibility to defend these nations and preserve exclusive access for US military forces. These agreements provide an opportunity to strengthen forward posture across the central and western Pacific.

Through the COFA structure, the Department of Defense should prioritize developing additional operational sites within the Freely Associated States (FAS). Pre-positioning forces, enhancing distributed basing, and expanding logistics hubs across the FAS would enable more flexible and resilient warfighting capabilities in proximity to the Taiwan Strait. The relatively permissive legal frameworks of the COFA agreements—coupled with the geographic advantage of the islands—make the FAS ideal locations for expanded US presence, including forces capable of dispersal and sustainment under contested conditions.

The so-called “Guam Cluster”—which includes the FAS—is the cornerstone of US defense architecture west of the IDL, and it is critical to sustainment in a future crisis. The United States should continue to invest political and military capital into reinforcing US access and capabilities in the FAS to deter Chinese aggression.

Dark clouds continue to gather on the Indo-Pacific horizon as the PLA modernizes and Xi continues to signal his ambition to unify the Taiwan Strait by any means necessary. In this environment, the credibility of US deterrence depends on the visible presence of capable military forces west of the IDL and their ability to respond with sufficient force. Lethality and visible presence matter.

As the Trump administration has acknowledged, credible deterrence—and, if necessary, victory—against China requires the active forward presence of combat-ready forces. Increasing US force posture in the Indo-Pacific through expanded presence agreements, intensified campaigning, and investment in the FAS will ensure the United States remains postured to respond swiftly and decisively to aggression.

Adam Kozloski is a nonresident senior fellow at the N7 Initiative in the Middle East Programs and at the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

The Tiger Project, an Atlantic Council effort, develops new insights and actionable recommendations for the United States, as well as its allies and partners, to deter and counter aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Explore our collection of work, including expert commentary, multimedia content, and in-depth analysis, on strategic defense and deterrence issues in the region.

The post China is carrying out ‘dress rehearsals’ to take Taiwan. Here’s how the US should respond. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

“Yes, really”: American private military companies (back) in Gaza

Alia Brahimi — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:22:18 +0000

In Season 2, Episode 11 of the Guns for Hire podcast, host Alia Brahimi is joined by international lawyer and former senior UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber to discuss Israel’s militarization of aid in Gaza and how US private military companies (PMC) and individual contractors could be held legally liable for their association with violations occurring in the Gaza Strip.

Craig offers his assessment of why the Israeli-led Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was established, its rejection by the UN and the international aid community for weaponising hunger, as well as the international laws it is breaching. He describes the cruelties and dangers inhering in this new aid system and outlines how individuals, including PMC employees, may be held legally accountable for their participation in the GHF and their association with the IDF’s wider alleged war crimes.

“This is not an aid operation. It is an extension of the unlawful Israeli occupation and its plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.”

Craig Mokhiber, international lawyer and former senior UN human rights official

Find the Guns For Hire podcast on the app of your choice

About the podcast

Guns for Hire podcast is a production of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Initiative. Taking Libya as its starting point, it explores the causes and implications of the growing use of mercenaries in armed conflict.

The podcast features guests from many walks of life, from ethicists and historians to former mercenary fighters. It seeks to understand what the normalization of contract warfare tells us about the world we currently live in, the future of the international system, and what war could look like in the coming decades.

Kroenig featured in Times Radio segment on ‘a new nuclear age’

Atlantic Council — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:35:45 +0000

Vice President and Senior Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

On June 4, Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, was featured in a Times Radio segment discussing the ‘new nuclear age.’ Kroenig stated that China’s massive nuclear buildup, alongside Russia’s arsenal, marks the dawn of a new and more dangerous nuclear age.

Staff

Matthew Kroenig

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Defense Policy

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

The post Kroenig featured in Times Radio segment on ‘a new nuclear age’ appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Armenia’s ‘crossroads’ offers the US and Israel a rare opportunity

Sheila Paylan — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 12:00:00 +0000

For decades, Armenia and Azerbaijan’s conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh has kept the South Caucasus in a gridlock of historic animosities, closed borders, and economic stagnation. But with the conflict now effectively over, Armenia has launched its “Crossroads of Peace” initiative, envisioning itself as a central Eurasian transit hub.

The project aims to revive long-defunct transport routes—once important arteries of Soviet-era trade—that were severed after Azerbaijan and Turkey closed their borders with Armenia in 1991 and 1993, respectively, thereby isolating it. Restoring these routes would reconnect Armenia with its neighbors and link broader corridors from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea and from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, facilitating trade between major economies in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. For both the United States and Israel, supporting this initiative offers a strategic opportunity to enhance regional stability, expand economic influence, and counterbalance adversarial powers like Iran, Russia, and China.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev attend a meeting of heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, on October 11, 2019. Sputnik/Alexei Druzhinin/Kremlin via REUTERS

This vision, however, ultimately depends on the successful conclusion of the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which remains stalled largely due to Azerbaijan’s shifting and escalating demands—including calls for constitutional amendments and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group—despite diplomatic consensus over the treaty text and Armenia’s expressed readiness to sign it. Another major underlying issue is Azerbaijan’s insistence on an extraterritorial so-called “Zangezur Corridor”, which would connect it to its exclave Nakhchivan through southern Armenia, but bypassing all Armenian oversight, customs, and security. Armenia, while supportive of connectivity, unequivocally rejects any surrender of sovereignty over its territory.

Nevertheless, Crossroads of Peace still offers Baku significant economic and geopolitical benefits. By reconnecting regional transport networks, including access to Turkey through Armenian territory under Armenian jurisdiction, Azerbaijan could achieve many of its logistical objectives without the contentious demand for a sovereign corridor. This cooperative model would provide Baku with more trade routes to Nakhchivan and beyond, while also gaining international legitimacy and investment through a mutually beneficial and multilateral framework.

Why engagement serves US interests

The entry of US President Donald Trump’s second administration offers an opportune moment for the United States, and potentially Israel, to play an active role in securing a high-profile peace agreement by pushing Azerbaijan to sign the treaty with Armenia. While brokering such a deal would be a diplomatic win in itself, its real payoff lies in unlocking the Crossroads of Peace and thereby delivering meaningful strategic and commercial gains.

By facilitating new trade routes through a Western-friendly, post-conflict South Caucasus, the United States could establish a firmer presence in a region it has long neglected, challenge the dominance of rival powers, and generate economic returns through infrastructure partnerships and transit revenue.

For Washington, the Eurasian transport network represents a unique opportunity to establish a foothold in a region vital to global trade and geopolitics. It offers a Western-aligned alternative to transport networks increasingly dominated by Russia and China while opening the door to US commercial participation in logistics, infrastructure, and technology.

The Eurasian transport network, comprising mainly the Northern Corridor, Middle Corridor, and International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), moves millions of tons of freight worth billions of dollars each year. These corridors, which cut across Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and Eastern Europe, are economic battlegrounds where Moscow and Beijing seek to maintain influence, and the West attempts to create alternatives to Russian and Chinese-controlled infrastructure. In this fiercely contested region, controlling trade routes means shaping the future balance of economic and geopolitical power.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Despite the strategic importance of these corridors, the United States currently has a very limited regional presence and lacks an integrated strategy or infrastructure footprint, offering only modest support limited to diplomatic engagement and technical assistance for the Middle Corridor, led by Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. However, this corridor faces significant challenges, including limited infrastructure capacity, high costs, and a lack of integration, which undermine its efficiency and deter large-scale, reliable trade flows. It is also partially aligned with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with parts of the Middle Corridor physically overlapping with and increasingly integrated into the BRI, drawing it into Beijing’s sphere of influence.

China’s growing interest and investment in the Middle Corridor thus further complicates its appeal for Western stakeholders. Chinese influence is now poised to grow even further with the Anaklia Port—a deep-sea project in Georgia—having been awarded to a Chinese-led consortium. Meanwhile, most freight still flows through Russia via the Northern Corridor, maintaining Moscow’s dominance over Eurasian transport. The INSTC—connecting India, Iran, Russia, and Europe—offers some diversification, but it presents “double trouble” for Washington’s involvement by relying heavily on both Iranian and Russian networks, two countries under sweeping US sanctions.

From a purely economic standpoint, the potential of Crossroads of Peace is substantial. Much of Eurasia’s overland trade currently bypasses Armenia, relying instead on Georgia’s politically sensitive routes and the broader Middle Corridor. Diversifying transit through Armenia would strengthen regional connectivity and unlock new channels for investment, trade, and employment. By investing early in Crossroads of Peace, the United States can counterbalance Moscow and Beijing’s regional footprints while creating entry points for American firms in sectors such as construction, energy, digital infrastructure, and logistics. While comprehensive feasibility studies have yet to be publicly released, the Armenian government has indicated that the project could generate significant economic returns by restoring dormant transit infrastructure and linking key regional corridors. Institutions like the Asian Development Bank have expressed support, and the US-Armenia Strategic Partnership Charter highlights the initiative as a priority area for cooperation.

Moreover, given the Trump administration’s emphasis on economic partnerships and tangible returns, Armenia’s proposal aligns well as a concrete opportunity to advance US financial interests. Infrastructure projects, particularly railways and highways, could generate significant returns through tolls, tariffs, and transit fees, benefiting US investors, US-backed development institutions, and potentially the US federal government if linked to initiatives like an External Revenue Service.

However, the precise mechanisms through which the United States would realize these returns—such as specific investment structures, revenue-sharing agreements, or operational roles—require further elaboration. Detailed financial modeling and bilateral agreements would be necessary to quantify and actualize these benefits. The US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) could help drive this effort by providing early-stage support and risk mitigation for targeted investments in Crossroads of Peace that lay the groundwork for a sustainable US economic footprint across the South Caucasus. This approach would also dovetail with Trump’s broader ambitions to fund government expenditures through foreign-derived revenue rather than domestic taxation. Investing in Crossroads of Peace could therefore fit neatly into this vision, turning geopolitics into a profitable enterprise benefiting the American taxpayer.

The potential for this initiative to succeed under US sponsorship could redefine Washington’s legacy in the South Caucasus and position the Trump administration as the indispensable peace broker in a region historically dominated by rival powers. Given Trump’s record of bold diplomatic efforts, from Ukraine-Russia negotiations to mediation between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo—conflicts still far from resolution—brokering peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan would be a comparatively easy win. It would take little more than a decisive push from Trump to “close the deal” and get Azerbaijan to sign onto terms it has already effectively agreed to, delivering a swift and tangible diplomatic victory.

Why engagement serves Israeli interests

Israel, too, has strong incentives to support the finalization of peace and the development of Armenia’s transit ambitions. Azerbaijan is a close Israeli ally, particularly in terms of energy and security cooperation. Helping to solidify peace with Armenia could deepen these ties while promoting broader regional stability. With trade between Israel and Gulf states, particularly the United Arab Emirates, growing rapidly under the Abraham Accords, Israel could benefit from overland corridors like Crossroads of Peace that improve access to Persian Gulf markets, bypass Iran, and create new logistics, infrastructure, and technology cooperation opportunities. This would enhance Israel’s economic outreach and reduce its exposure to Tehran’s influence in regional supply chains.

Additionally, Israel has historic and cultural ties with Armenia, notably through the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem, home to one of the oldest continuous Armenian diasporas in the world. A peaceful, economically integrated South Caucasus could open new avenues for Israeli trade, diplomacy, and investment across the region.

Furthermore, a secure peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan would significantly reduce Armenia’s dependence on Iran, which has become one of its few trade and energy lifelines due to closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia’s pragmatic relationship with Iran stems more from necessity than ideological alignment. Opening new trade routes through Azerbaijan and Turkey would enable Armenia to break this dependence and accelerate its Westward pivot.

This shift would directly serve Israel’s interests by further isolating Iran economically while allowing Israel to maintain its foothold in Azerbaijan as a counterweight to Iranian threats. Armenia remains one of Iran’s few accessible and expanding trade partners, with Iranian exports to Armenia reaching nearly 600 million dollars in 2023, including petroleum gas, iron, and other industrial goods. The two countries also maintain strategic energy exchanges—notably under a “Gas for Electricity” agreement—and Armenia is Iran’s only direct link to the Eurasian Economic Union. Reducing Armenia’s dependence on Iran through regional normalization would therefore help close a critical commercial and geopolitical corridor for Tehran. At the same time, a more connected and less Iran-dependent Armenia—at peace with its neighbors and increasingly aligned on common regional security concerns—could adopt a more collaborative stance toward Israel’s interests. Turkish officials have made clear, however, that normalization with Azerbaijan is a necessary precondition for reopening the Turkey-Armenia border.

To this end, leveraging Azerbaijan’s growing interest in joining the Abraham Accords could be instrumental. Although Baku has long maintained strong security and energy relations with Israel, formalizing those relations within the Abraham Accords would significantly elevate its international standing. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently indicated that Armenia, too, could be a candidate for future accession—a development that would further reinforce a regional climate of normalization, mutual recognition, and cooperation. Building on this momentum, US-Israeli joint mediation could help encourage Azerbaijan to soften its stance toward Armenia, facilitating the conclusion of a peace agreement that respects Armenia’s sovereignty while satisfying Azerbaijan’s strategic objectives.

Seizing the opportunity

Finalizing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan offers Washington and Jerusalem a rare chance to tilt the balance of power in one of the world’s most critical yet contested regions. Investing in this moment and helping to overcome the last obstacles to a peace deal—through targeted diplomacy, infrastructure support, and principled mediation—can help secure new trade corridors, weaken adversaries, and build lasting influence at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. Armenia’s Crossroads of Peace is not merely a reconstruction project but a strategic gateway to a more stable, prosperous, and Western-aligned South Caucasus.

That said, a Westward pivot is not without geopolitical risks. Armenia’s deep historical ties with Russia and Iran could make this realignment contentious, especially if viewed as a zero-sum loss by Moscow or Tehran. To mitigate this, the United States and its allies should pair their investment and mediation efforts with clear security and economic guarantees to Armenia, ranging from energy diversification and trade facilitation to defense cooperation and institutional integration. Framing Crossroads of Peace as a shared regional gain, rather than a Western encroachment, will be essential to ensuring its sustainability.

But this opportunity will not remain open for long. It must be seized now.

Sheila Paylan is a human rights lawyer and senior legal consultant with the United Nations.

* The views expressed herein are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.

The post Armenia’s ‘crossroads’ offers the US and Israel a rare opportunity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ullman in the Hill on importance of strategic innovation for US military superiority

bgalicia — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 11:13:55 +0000

On June 9, Atlantic Council Senior Advisor Harlan Ullman published an op-ed in the Hill on lessons the US can learn from Ukraine’s “Operation Spiderweb.” He argues that future success against adversaries will depend on the US military’s ability to use innovative tactics and remain agile.

International Advisory Board member

Harlan Ullman

Senior Advisor

The post Ullman in the Hill on importance of strategic innovation for US military superiority appeared first on Atlantic Council.

A German leader’s D-Day lesson for Trump

Frederick Kempe — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 12:00:00 +0000

Set aside for the moment the mud wrestling between the world’s most powerful and richest men, Donald Trump and Elon Musk. This weekend, let’s focus on an insufficiently noticed exchange that goes more to the heart of the United States’ enduring and endangered purpose.

On the eve of the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion at Normandy that marked the beginning of Europe’s liberation from Adolf Hitler, newly elected German Chancellor Friedrich Merz brought a message to the White House that no American should ignore.

Merz made reference to the anniversary, in the context of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, as marking a day “when the Americans once ended a war in Europe.”

Caught off-guard, the US president quipped that D-Day wasn’t a pleasant day for Germany.

“Well, in the long run, Mr. President,” Merz replied calmly, “this was the liberation of my country from Nazi dictatorship.”

Trump paused to digest what he’d just heard, a good German thanking Americans for defeating a criminal one, then he answered, “That’s true. That’s true.”

What came next was the most significant message US allies could send to the Trump administration as another criminal regime tests allied resolve.

“And we know what we owe you,” Merz went on. “But this is the reason why I’m saying that America is, again, in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war.” Merz asked Trump to talk about what they could do jointly “for more pressure on Russia,” placing the war’s blame unambiguously where it belongs.

It’s worth calling out that Merz-Trump exchange, which came in the twenty-seventh minute of their Oval Office session with reporters, after Trump comments on his travel ban, prospects for a China trade deal, his relationship with his erstwhile adviser Musk, and the presidential protocol of when to use an autopen signature.

Given the Ukraine war’s gravity and Merz’s reference to World War II, Trump’s comments that followed must have been disconcerting to Merz. The German chancellor was well enough rehearsed not to show it. When asked by a reporter when he would impose more sanctions on Russia, Trump talked about his over two-hour conversation with Putin, during which he compared the war to “two young children fighting like crazy . . . Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.”

With nearly a million and a half casualties already in this schoolyard brawl, a reporter asked Merz whether he agreed with the analogy.

Merz was at his best. He said both Germany and the United States agree on how terrible war is, and both are looking for ways to stop it soon. “And I told the president before we came in,” said Merz, “that he is the key person in the world who can really do that now by putting pressure on Russia.”

As Merz spoke of the children Russia has kidnapped from Ukraine, Trump described disturbing satellite pictures of the war—“bodies, arms, heads, legs all over the place. You’ve never seen anything like it. It’s so ridiculous.” Merz then added, “And this is only by Russian weapons against Ukraine. This had never happened with [Ukrainian] weapons against Russia, never . . . So, this is the difference, and that’s the reason why we are trying to do more on Russia.”

In the past two weeks, Trump has appeared to be losing patience with Putin, suggesting that he knows Putin is playing him for time and wondering whether Putin’s relentless attacks on civilians demonstrate that the Russian president has “gone absolutely CRAZY.” Beyond that, Trump has been quoted as calling Ukraine’s drone attacks last weekend on Russian strategic bombers “badass.”

All that history will remember, however, is whether Trump was the US president who contributed to Putin’s defeat and brought Ukraine a lasting peace—or whether he stood by as Putin escalates further, targeting civilians and their infrastructure. In all the news noise of a typical Trump administration week, it is worth listening closer to the German chancellor’s D-Day appeal that it will take much more US pressure on Russia to end this European war.

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post A German leader’s D-Day lesson for Trump appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine’s drone strikes offer four big lessons for US nuclear strategists

Mark J. Massa — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 22:09:40 +0000

In the days since Ukraine’s brazen special forces attack inside Russia, analysts have breathlessly argued that the operation, captured in spectacular detail in videos, significantly changed the character of military conflict—or even “rewrote the rules of war.”

Maybe so. There were plenty of novel elements to Ukraine’s “Operation Spiderweb,” which destroyed a dozen or more large Russian military aircraft—including bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons—across the length and breadth of Russia, using drones launched from containers positioned near Russian airfields.

But in my field of nuclear deterrence, the attack was enlightening in another way: It reinforced principles that have been hiding in plain sight for years. For US nuclear strategists, the attack yielded at least four crucial lessons.

1. The risk of nuclear escalation over conventional attacks is exaggerated

Ukraine’s drone strikes were a blow to the widely held belief that nonnuclear military attacks on nuclear-relevant facilities or assets will lead automatically to uncontrollable nuclear escalation.

As I have argued previously, too many analysts of nuclear affairs appear to overweight the risk that if a nuclear-armed country is facing attacks on nuclear-relevant locations or assets by conventional weapon systems or dual-capable ones (systems relevant to both nuclear and conventional missions), then that country will feel overwhelming pressure to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, perhaps even before assessing the extent of the attacks. This logic looks convincing. But it is empirically unsupported.

Russia may yet respond to the Ukrainian attack. But Russian nuclear retaliation in Ukraine seems unlikely, even after Russia lowered its stated threshold for nuclear use in September 2024. Ukrainian drone strikes on multiple Russian bomber bases would seem to be exactly the sort of attack that would trigger Russia’s lower threshold for resorting to nuclear weapons. Yet no such use has materialized.

To be clear, nuclear-armed states may well resort to nuclear use to coerce an end to military operations that could lead to unacceptable costs, such as the destruction of a large portion of that state’s nuclear arsenal. But last weekend’s operation is further evidence that attacks falling short of this threshold are not likely to trigger a major nuclear exchange.

2. Nuclear forces are only as dependable as their defenses

Ukraine’s attacks vividly illustrated the vulnerability of the US bomber fleet, which is often sitting on the tarmac. Drone threats are just one of a variety of air and missile threats to the US homeland, though certainly one that has received less attention in the strategic forces community. The 2023 Congressional Strategic Posture Commission Report and a recent Atlantic Council study on missile defense both concluded that the United States must enhance its air and missile defense. In particular, it must pay attention to countering coercive attacks on civilian and military infrastructure, as well as on US nuclear forces.

Reflecting on the Ukrainian attacks, General Thomas Bussiere, the commander of US Air Force Global Strike Command, said at an Atlantic Council event on June 5 that the Air Force already deploys counter-drone systems around strategic air bases. The strikes on Russia this past weekend underscore that these efforts should improve and expand, perhaps under the aegis of the Trump administration’s proposed “Golden Dome.” This active defense must be completed by improved sensing, better coordination among responsible agencies, and the advancement of passive measures, such as the use of hardened shelters in peacetime, as well as air alerts and backup airfields in conflict or crisis.

3. Drones should be factored into nuclear-capabilities planning

There’s another truism in nuclear affairs rendered all the truer by last weekend’s operation: Advanced and emerging technologies can powerfully complement nuclear weapons in holding an adversary’s strategic nuclear forces at risk.

This possibility is especially tantalizing as US nuclear strategists grapple with the fact that China’s nuclear-weapons arsenal is expected to reach near-parity with the US nuclear arsenal in the mid-2030s. Because holding at risk an adversary’s nuclear weapons is an important part of how the United States deters nuclear war, the growth in China’s nuclear arsenal puts pressure on the United States to increase the size of its own nuclear arsenal. Advanced conventional weapons might complement these forces or even reduce the extent to which the United States will need to expand its nuclear forces. Perhaps drones could play a part in that equation.

4. Special forces should be at the center of major power competition

As my Atlantic Council colleagues have argued in recent reports, US special operations forces, which have been occupied with counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the Middle East for two decades, can play an important role in US competition with major powers such as Russia, marking a return to their Cold War-era roots. Ukraine’s attack on Russian bombers is best understood in the context of a long history of operations behind enemy lines to disrupt airfields.

Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb was certainly daring and will reduce the capacity of Russia’s long-range aviation for some time. More than marking a new chapter in the history of warfare, however, the strikes should spur the US government to address the vulnerabilities and opportunities that nuclear strategists have focused on for years.

Mark J. Massa is the deputy director for strategic forces policy in the Forward Defense program of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council.

The post Ukraine’s drone strikes offer four big lessons for US nuclear strategists appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Dispatch from Kyiv: Ukraine is putting new pressure on Russia. Will Trump follow?

John E. Herbst — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 20:25:48 +0000

This is part of a series of regular assessments of the efforts, spearheaded by the Trump administration, to achieve a negotiated end to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Read last week’s edition here.

KYIV—I arrived in Ukraine’s capital on June 1, several hours after news broke of the country’s successful destruction of advanced Russian bombers—TU-22s and TU-95s—and Russia’s most advanced intelligence plane, the A-50. Over the next two days, I had numerous meetings with senior Ukrainian officials, politicians, and civil society activists. The strike was a major morale boost across the board, though some of the Ukrainians I spoke with still worry whether the Trump administration will continue to supply military intelligence and equipment to Ukraine; others are optimistic that Trump will not let Russian President Vladimir Putin bamboozle him.

In the near term, the spectacular Ukrainian operation will have a major impact on Russia’s ability to strike from the air at Ukrainian civilian and military targets. It has also bolstered the nuclear security of the United States and its allies by taking out as much as 34 percent of Moscow’s nuclear-capable bomber force. But perhaps the greatest impact of the strike extends to the diplomacy to end the war, and in particular to the calculations of the Trump administration. That is because the strike undermined the common perception, including in the White House, that time was on Putin’s side and Russia would ultimately overwhelm Ukraine.

How has that big idea played out this week? It is notable that the only immediate reaction to the strike from Trump world came from outside actors, many of whom have shown little understanding that the Kremlin considers the United States to be its principal adversary. Some in this cohort have even naively argued that the United States has no stakes in its aggression against Ukraine. Trump allies Steve Bannon and Mike Flynn, for example, claim that Kyiv’s strike undermines Trump’s diplomacy to end the war. It is therefore time, in Bannon’s phrase, for the United States to “pull all support” for Ukraine. It should be noted that this was not a reflection of Trump’s policy. It was an attempt by some in his circle to influence that policy.

But Trump has not moved in that direction. In fact, the White House reaction to the audacious operation has been notably nuanced. The first word from the White House—almost a day after Ukraine’s “special military operation”—was that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had not informed Trump of the impending action. There was no real comment on the action itself.

Reading between the lines with Putin and Merz

The next step was Trump’s June 4 phone call with Putin. In a Truth Social post afterward, Trump noted that it was a good call, but the Russian president was very angry about Ukraine’s attack and would have to retaliate. Trump critics understandably complained that there was no indication that the US president had tried to dissuade Putin from doing so—although the next day, the Washington Post reported that Trump claimed to have told Putin not to retaliate. In any case, Trump chose not to characterize the Ukrainian action.

That task was left to Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who in a terse public statement on June 4 noted that the attack on Russia’s nuclear strike capacity could be considered escalatory. This was essentially a performative smack on the knuckles for Kyiv. More relevant indications of Trump’s reaction and inclinations were leaked to the press on background. While expressing to his staff his frustration with both Putin and Zelenskyy, Trump also recognized the audacity of the Ukrainian operation, calling it “badass,” according to Axios. Still, Trump reportedly lamented that it would slow down movement toward a cease-fire.

Further indications of Trump’s outlook came June 5, when he met with Friedrich Merz, the new German chancellor. Merz’s objective, of course, was to strengthen Trump’s resolve to maintain support for Ukraine (and to maintain the US commitment to NATO, including keeping US troops in Germany). In that meeting, Trump said it seems that Putin wants all of Ukraine, an important sign that he is finally understanding that the Russian leader himself is the obstacle to the administration’s efforts to end the war.

All of this is of far greater importance to the diplomacy surrounding the war than the second meeting of Ukrainian and Russian negotiators in Istanbul on June 2. That meeting went as expected. On the plus side, there was another agreement on a limited prisoner exchange. On the question of a cease-fire, the Russian side finally presented its formal terms. Those terms are for a vindictive, victor’s peace. Ukraine would be required not just to declare neutrality and demilitarize; it would also have to hand over to Russia all the territory in the eastern Ukrainian oblasts—including areas currently controlled by Kyiv. Moscow’s terms were likely on Trump’s mind as he discussed Putin’s policy toward Ukraine with Merz.

Whither the sanctions bill?

Trump’s clearer understanding of the Putin problem and his new respect for Ukraine’s military capabilities—“badass” being a backhanded but clear compliment—is a plus. But it has yet to yield a stronger policy from the White House.

Restive Republicans in Congress have been chafing for months at Trump’s reluctance to do what he promised: to bring pressure on the side blocking peace. Taking a leading position on this, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) along with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) proposed a sanctions bill in early April with fifty cosponsors. That bill now has eighty-two cosponsors. Last week, Graham said that he thought the bill would move forward in the Senate this week. House Speaker Mike Johnson supports the effort for tough sanctions. Strong national security Republicans seem to believe that Ukraine’s successful June 1 strike is making it more likely that Congress will move on the sanctions bill and that the United States will help supply Ukraine with additional military equipment. Deft Ukrainian diplomacy on Capitol Hill this week—led by Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak—has further encouraged this sentiment.

Yet it is still not clear that the administration will move. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 6 that the White House asked for the sanctions bill to be watered down, and Trump indicated in his meeting with Merz that he is considering, for some unknown reason, sanctioning both sides. This means, at a minimum, some delay as Graham, Johnson, and other advocates try to work out their differences with the White House. It might also mean that Trump cannot bring himself to punish Putin.

That can only strengthen Putin’s conviction that Trump will eventually allow Russia to gobble up Ukraine. Reports that the Pentagon, with a leadership that is energetically trying to diminish ties with Ukraine, is transferring desperately needed anti-drone technology from Ukraine to US forces will also be read in the Kremlin as a sign of US weakness.

Ironically, Trump’s success at reaching a sustainable end to the war in Ukraine depends on the efforts of those advocates for pressure on Russia. Kellogg seemed to be making this point in a June 6 statement that the Ukrainian special operation could be a forcing function for peace. If, as Trump admitted, Putin’s goal is not a durable peace but to seize Ukraine, then the only real way to end the fighting is to make it very uncomfortable for Putin to continue fighting. Ukraine’s June 1 attack was a step in that direction. Strong US action in the form of sanctions and military supplies can drive that point home. Without that, the US president does not keep his long-stated promise to bring a stable peace to Europe.

John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.

The post Dispatch from Kyiv: Ukraine is putting new pressure on Russia. Will Trump follow? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Keeping China at bay and critical minerals stocked: The case for US-Africa defense collaboration

Aleksandra Gadzala Tirziu — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:02:47 +0000

Download PDF

The United States is ill prepared to confront the challenges of an increasingly hostile global strategic environment. A coordinated coalition of adversarial states is working to dismantle the US-led global order, seeking to replace it with one defined by their ambitions and autocratic principles. At the forefront of this effort is China, which is rapidly accelerating its military capabilities and expanding its defense industrial base (DIB) to field sophisticated weapons systems designed to deter the United States globally and secure its goal of national rejuvenation. Aligned with China are Russia, Iran, and North Korea—forming an increasingly unified axis of authoritarians steadily advancing toward this objective. Compounding these challenges are increasingly frayed traditional US security alliances, notably in Europe, that leave the United States further exposed.

The most effective strategy to contend with this evolving threat landscape is through robust preparedness—both immediate and long term. Against this background, US and allied attention has increasingly turned to Africa. Africa holds one-third of the world’s known mineral reserves, including 80 percent of platinum and chromium, 47 percent of cobalt, and 21 percent of graphite.

Of the fifty minerals identified as critical by the US Geological Survey (USGS), thirty-two are found in Africa. US policymakers have therefore begun to explore partnerships with African countries to secure these resources. Yet, despite several promising initiatives, the United States still lacks a coherent and comprehensive policy for engagement—particularly one that can compete with the entrenched influence of the axis of authoritarian states, notably Russia and China, in the continent’s mining industry.

By supporting African nations in the development of their domestic mineral processing capabilities, the United States could enable them to retain a greater share of their mineral wealth and build self-sufficiency in defense. Such efforts could also diminish China’s influence across the continent. For the United States, developing these capabilities could secure a reliable source of critical minerals.

This report begins to lay the groundwork for such an effort by:

Identifying the defense capabilities the United States should prioritize to remain competitive in the evolving global strategic environment and the critical minerals necessary to support them.
Charting Africa’s critical mineral resources relevant to US defense needs and assessing the shifting defense postures of African nations, particularly where the development of their weapons systems and security objectives aligns with US interests.
Underscoring the importance of US support for building Africa’s mineral processing infrastructure, while addressing the structural barriers that have hindered progress so far.
Advancing targeted recommendations for US policymakers to operationalize such efforts and redefine US-Africa relations for today’s global challenges.

View the full report

Explore the program

The Africa Center works to promote dynamic geopolitical partnerships with African states and to redirect US and European policy priorities toward strengthening security and bolstering economic growth and prosperity on the continent.

The post Keeping China at bay and critical minerals stocked: The case for US-Africa defense collaboration appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russian hybrid warfare: Ukraine’s success offers lessons for Europe

Maksym Beznosiuk — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 21:39:11 +0000

As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues, the Kremlin is also rapidly escalating its hybrid war against Europe. Intelligence officials from a number of European countries are now raising the alarm and warning that Russian operations are growing in number and becoming bolder, with potential targets including transport hubs and critical infrastructure.

The Kremlin employs hybrid warfare tactics to remain below the threshold that would trigger a unified and potentially overwhelming European response. This has led to a surge in sabotage, cyberattacks, political interference, and disinformation campaigns across Europe, with a particular emphasis on countries closer to Russia.

Moscow’s hybrid war against Europe mirrors the tactics used by the Kremlin in Ukraine following the start of Russia’s invasion in 2014. Ukraine’s response to the often unprecedented challenges posed by Russian hybrid warfare offers important lessons for Kyiv’s European partners.

The Ukrainian experience highlights the gravity of the hybrid threat and the importance of an integrated response. The overall message to Western policymakers is clear: Moscow views hybrid warfare as an important Russian foreign policy tool and will continue expanding its campaign. Europe cannot afford to wait for Russian hybrid attacks to escalate further before building the advanced capabilities required to counter this threat.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There have been growing reports of Russian hybrid war-style attacks across the EU since the onset of Russian aggression against Ukraine eleven years ago. This trend gained significant additional momentum following the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Typical incidents include cyberattacks targeting infrastructure, sabotage including arson attacks, and attempts to disrupt military aid destined for Ukraine. Moscow is also accused of investing billions of dollars in sophisticated social media campaigns to influence the outcome of elections across Europe. The Kremlin’s hybrid operations are concentrated in central and eastern Europe, with Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states among the primary targets.

None of this is new to Ukraine. For more than a decade, Ukrainians have been learning to cope with the full range of Russia’s hybrid warfare toolbox. Russia’s attack on Ukraine began in February 2014 when Russian soldiers without insignias took control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in a lightning operation that was accompanied by a massive wave of targeted disinformation.

Russia’s subsequent efforts to destabilize and subjugate the rest of Ukraine have involved a combination of conventional military aggression, sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and support for pro-Russian actors in Ukraine. Thanks to this prolonged exposure to Russian hybrid warfare, Ukraine has been able to develop countermeasures that have helped build resilience and reduce the impact of Russia’s hybrid operations.

Ukraine’s response has been a collaborative effort involving the Ukrainian government, civil society, and the private sector. In the cyber sphere, efforts to improve Ukraine’s digital security have played a key role, with the launch of the country’s popular Diia platform and the establishment of the Ministry of Digital Transformation helping to drive important digital governance reforms.

This has enhanced Ukraine’s ability to maintain public services amid acts of cyber aggression and has improved engagement with the population. Ukraine’s progress in the digital sphere has been recognized internationally, with the country climbing from the 102 spot to fifth position in the UN’s annual Online Services Index in the seven years between 2018 and 2025.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Ukraine’s coordination structures, such as the Center for Strategic Communications and the Ministry of Digital Transformation, enable swift and well-coordinated responses across government, media, and digital channels. This offers a number of advantages in a hybrid war setting. For example, it allows the Ukrainian government to synchronize positions with proactive narrative-setting when countering the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns.

Ukraine has also benefited from a decentralized approach involving digital volunteers, civil society, and public-private partnerships. A wide range of civic tech groups and open-source investigators are active in Ukraine detecting and countering Russian disinformation. These measures have made it possible to expose Russian narratives efficiently, coordinate messaging across government and civil society, and maintain coherence during military operations.

Since 2014, Ukraine has been able to reduce Russia’s overwhelming initial advantages on the information front of the hybrid war. While Russian disinformation tactics continue to evolve and remain a major aspect of the ongoing invasion, Ukraine has managed to increasingly leverage information to shape international opinion and influence diplomatic outcomes.

At present, the European response to Russia’s hybrid war lacks the institutional agility and coordination between public sector and civil society that is evident in Ukraine. Instead, the EU and NATO have developed a number of parallel structures such as NATO’s Joint Intelligence and Security Division and the EU’s East StratCom Task Force. While these agencies continue to make meaningful contributions to the fight back against Russian hybrid warfare, they have yet to demonstrate the kind of real-time operational coordination that has served Ukraine so well.

Ukraine’s model for combating Russian hybrid warfare can’t be replicated in full, but it could serve as a practical reference point for building more adaptive and integrated responses across the West. Given Ukraine’s unique experience, it might make sense to establish a trilateral consultative framework together with the EU and NATO to enable rapid hybrid threat evaluations and coordinate responses.

Ukraine’s long record of countering Russian hybrid warfare has also highlighted the role of civil society. Kyiv’s European partners should consider increasing support for initiatives such as investigative journalism, fact-checking platforms, and technical watchdogs that can serve as support elements in a broader European defense ecosystem. In an environment where information is increasingly weaponized, Ukraine’s experience has also underlined the need to embed media literacy into the education system to ensure European citizens are able to consume information critically and are less vulnerable to Russian propaganda.

Maksym Beznosiuk is a strategic policy specialist and director of UAinFocus, an independent platform connecting Ukrainian and international experts around key Ukrainian issues.

Trump’s Russia policy must be rooted in realism

Agnia Grigas — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 20:50:06 +0000

US President Donald Trump has recently changed his tone toward Russian president Vladimir Putin, suggesting that he has “gone crazy” and is “playing with fire.” This highlights the ongoing difficulties of negotiating with the Kremlin. While the Trump administration broadly favors a realist approach to international relations, a more pragmatic assessment of Russia’s capabilities and objectives could better equip the US to achieve its stated goal of bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.

Almost three months ago, Ukraine accepted a US proposal for a thirty-day unconditional ceasefire. So far, Russia has refused to do likewise. Instead, the Kremlin continues to demand a series of preconditions. Meanwhile, Russia has intensified its missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian civilian targets. When Trump recently backed Putin’s proposal for direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the Russian leader then boycotted the subsequent Istanbul talks, sending only a lower-level delegation.

Within the Trump administration, key figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have all articulated their support for a realist view of international relations. This implies sidestepping abstract ideological objectives and focusing on tangible power factors such as economic size, population, geography, and military strength.

The realist viewpoint is reflected in Hegseth’s assertion that Ukraine returning to its pre-2014 borders is “unrealistic.” It can also be seen in Trump’s statements that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “does not have the cards” in negotiations with Russia, an assertion that seems far less certain in the wake of Ukraine’s successful recent strikes on Russia’s long-distance bombers.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Some advocates of foreign policy realism argue that the US should seek to accommodate Russia, even at Ukraine’s expense. However, this approach tends to exaggerate Russia’s strengths, while underestimating the importance of the Kremlin’s imperial objectives and the relevant fact that Russian national security doctrine identifies the US as its principal adversary. A more comprehensive realist analysis of Russia reveals that, despite its assertiveness, Moscow’s power is in fact often overstated, while its appetite for compromise is limited.

Compared to the United States, Europe, and NATO, Russia simply does not “hold the cards,” to use Trump’s phrase. Its $2 trillion economy ranks outside the world’s top ten, trailing behind the US, China, Germany, Japan, India, and others. Although Russia has weathered sanctions, the prolonged war since 2022 has left its economy overextended and vulnerable.

The Russian population of 145 million is shrinking and ranks ninth globally, far behind the US and the collective European Union. Militarily, Russia’s large conventional forces have under-performed during the invasion of Ukraine while sustaining heavy losses. Russia’s $146 billion military budget, though substantial relative to neighboring states, pales in comparison to the $968 billion US budget in 2023, or even the collective defense spending of EU member states.

Russia remains a formidable nuclear power and frequently reminds the international community of this fact. Since the very first days of the Ukraine invasion in February 2022, Putin and other Kremlin officials have engaged in regular nuclear saber-rattling. But while Russia is the only nuclear power to make such threats, Putin has repeatedly failed to act when his red lines have been crossed by the Ukrainians, and has been publicly warned by his Chinese allies not to cross the nuclear threshold.

Since 2022, Russia has lost much of its energy leverage and is no longer Europe’s key energy supplier. Meanwhile, the United States has consolidated its position as a leading global energy exporter, particularly in liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is enabling Europe to diversify away from Russia while starving the Kremlin of vital revenue and geopolitical influence.

Eurasia Center events

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Transatlantic Security Initiative

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

In realist terms, Russia’s power surpasses that of its immediate smaller neighbors but falls well short of the US or the European Union as a whole. Countries in Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe view Putin’s ambitions through a realist lens based on centuries of painful experience with Russian imperialism. They understand that Putin’s current goal of reasserting Moscow’s dominance over the territories of the former Soviet Union and Russian Empire is deeply rooted in the Kremlin’s perception of Russian national interests.

President Trump should not fall into the same trap as his predecessors. Past US administrations, from George W. Bush onward, have sought to normalize relations with Moscow but have consistently underestimated Russia’s enduring imperialist objectives. In 2001, Bush famously called Putin “trustworthy” and said he has been able to “get a sense of his soul.” And yet before the end of Bush’s second term, Putin had become increasingly hostile to the West and had invaded Georgia. US President Barack Obama then pursued a “reset” in relations with Russia, only for Putin to invade Ukraine in 2014.

US President Joe Biden initially adopted a similarly optimistic stance toward Moscow, emphasizing the importance of predictable relations with Russia. In May 2021, Biden canceled sanctions on the Kremlin’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline. The following month, he met Putin in Geneva for a bilateral summit that was widely viewed as a further concession to the Russian leader. Less than a year later, Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Looking back, it is clear that US policy toward Russia has often been shaped by the optimism of incoming administrations rather than a sober, realist understanding of Moscow’s longstanding ambitions. A deeper grasp of Russia’s objectives and capabilities could help the Trump administration, alongside European leaders, to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and achieve a durable peace. Approaching the Kremlin from a position of strength, through the implementation of new sanctions on Russia and sustained military support for Ukraine, would be essential tools in securing that peace.

Agnia Grigas is senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire.”

Immediate steps that Europe can take to enhance its role in NATO defense

Franklin D. Kramer, Kristen Taylor — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 20:34:11 +0000

Key takeaways

Despite its three-year war against Ukraine, Russia has significantly reconstituted its forces and could pose a formidable threat to Europe in the near and medium term.
Europe needs to undertake a massive buildup of unmanned vehicles, has too few forces on the borders with Russia, cannot marshal the forces necessary to gain sea control without US support, and is highly vulnerable to cyberattacks on military-critical infrastructure.
Even if European nations commit to boost defense spending dramatically at the 2025 NATO summit, Europe needs to take immediate actions to strengthen deterrence while waiting for bigger investments to come online.

There are four steps that European nations should undertake in the near and medium term to enhance NATO’s deterrence and defense capabilities against the prospect of Russian aggression.

As the European Commission’s plan for strengthening European defense stated, “Russia will remain a fundamental threat to Europe’s security for the foreseeable future,” and one which requires a timely response inasmuch as “Russia has made it clear that according to their understanding they remain at war with the West.” Accordingly, as part of enhancing NATO defense, Europe needs to take prompt action to significantly increase:

the effectiveness of forces at its borders with or near Russia,
its capability for sea control,
the resilience of critical infrastructures necessary to defense operations, and
its defense industrial capabilities.

The importance of Europe taking such actions arises from a confluence of three factors: first, Russia’s willingness as demonstrated by its actions in Ukraine to undertake “major mechanized high-intensity warfare” to achieve its geopolitical aims; second, the challenges facing the United States military with the potential for conflict in the Indo-Pacific that could require resources that heretofore have been focused on Europe; and, third, decades of defense underinvestment by European nations that have left their militaries and defense industrial bases ill-prepared to engage in a sustained conventional conflict.

These concerns are significantly heightened because Russia, despite its more than three-year, ongoing war against Ukraine, has nonetheless been able to reconstitute its land forces and has fully maintained its air, naval, cyber, and space capabilities. In recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s supreme allied commander, described Russia’s continuing reconstitution of its military forces:

Despite extensive battlefield losses in Ukraine, the Russian military is reconstituting and growing at a faster rate than most analysts had anticipated. In fact, the Russian army, which has borne the brunt of combat, is today larger than it was at the beginning of the war—despite suffering an estimated 790,000 casualties. . . . Within its air and maritime capabilities, Russia has sustained only minor losses in Ukraine. The Russian Aerospace Force currently retains over 1,100 combat-capable aircraft that include Su-57 stealth fighters and Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers. Aside from some losses in its Black Sea Fleet, the Russian Navy remains intact, with over 60 submarines and 42 surface vessels capable of launching nuclear-tipped Kalibr cruise missiles.

Moreover, in addition to maintaining its force structure, Russia has substantially enhanced its defense industrial capabilities. Again, per Cavoli:

Russia has expanded its industrial production, opened new manufacturing facilities, and converted commercial production lines for military purposes. As a result, the Russian defense industrial base is expected to roll out 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles, and 200 Iskander ballistic and cruise missiles this year. (Comparatively, the United States only produces about 135 tanks per year and no longer produces new Bradley Fighting Vehicles.) Additionally, we anticipate Russia to produce 250,000 artillery shells per month, which puts it on track to build a stockpile three times greater than the United States and Europe combined.

Moscow is also marrying its expanded industrial prowess with more sophisticated technological capabilities. For example, Russia is investing significantly in, and having early success with, unmanned vehicle swarming capabilities.

Most significantly, Russia’s threatening activities are not limited to Ukraine. One key concern is that Russia has been building up its infrastructure near the borders of Finland and the Baltic states. As one report describes:

Some 100 miles east of its border with Finland, in the Russian city of Petrozavodsk, military engineers are expanding army bases where the Kremlin plans to create a new army headquarters to oversee tens of thousands of troops over the next several years. Those soldiers, many now serving on the front lines in Ukraine, are intended to be the backbone of a Russian military preparing to face off with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, according to Western military and intelligence officials. The Kremlin is expanding military recruitment, bolstering weapons production and upgrading railroad lines in border areas. . . .

Most of the manpower expansion will take place in the Leningrad district, which faces Estonia, Latvia and Finland. Smaller brigades will nearly triple in size to become divisions of around 10,000 troops, according to Western military and intelligence officials. . . . Russia is planning to build new barracks and training grounds and to upgrade arsenals and railroad lines to accommodate the swelling troop numbers in and around Petrozavodsk.

It is not clear, of course, whether Russia would choose to attack NATO countries. But what is clear from Cavoli’s testimony is that “Russia’s willingness to employ brutal means in pursuit of its goals,” and that the “Russian regime has refashioned its military, economic, and social structures to sustain what it describes as a long-term confrontation with the West—systemic changes that illustrate Russia’s intention to confront us into the foreseeable future.”

Estimates vary as to when Russia could sufficiently reconstitute from its conflict with Ukraine to undertake an attack against NATO. The uncertainty is rooted in the fact that the duration of the Russia-Ukraine war is itself uncertain, with substantial efforts as of this writing being taken by the United States to bring the fighting to a halt. In that event, a report from Bruegel stated: “A significantly more challenging scenario for Europe would be an unlikely peace deal accepted by Ukraine. In such a scenario, Russia is likely to continue its military build-up, creating a formidable military challenge to all of the EU in a very short period, given current Russian production. The EU and allies including the UK and Norway would need to accelerate their military build-ups immediately and massively.

Specific predictions as to the time needed for full Russian reconstitution generally range from two to five years. Norway’s senior commander has stated that two to three years would suffice; Jack Watling of the United Kingdom’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has noted the importance of “ensuring that the UK’s Armed Forces are contributing to a credible deterrence posture alongside European NATO allies by the end of 2027.” Other estimates fall into a three-to-five-year window.

Timing uncertainties—even at the higher end—should provide little comfort. As retired Maj. Gen. Gordon “Skip” Davis, a former deputy assistant secretary general at NATO, has warned, if Russia is given “two, maybe three to five years” to rebuild its forces while Europe fails to rearm at the same pace, European forces “would be at a significant disadvantage in a high-intensity fight.”

Such a scenario of NATO fighting at a substantial disadvantage is entirely plausible if Europe fails to take action. Most obviously, Russia is fully capable of large-scale warfare with its current capabilities. If full-scale conflict in Ukraine were to end, many of those capabilities could be directed against NATO—perhaps for a relatively limited operation such as against one of the Baltic countries, combined with nuclear threats to dissuade NATO from launching an effective response, or, with longer preparation, possibly a full-scale attack. Moreover, if the United States were facing or actually engaged in a conflict in the Indo-Pacific—keeping in mind that China’s President Xi Jinping has told his forces to be ready to succeed in a conflict against Taiwan by 2027—European nations should have the necessary capabilities to respond effectively against Russian aggression.

European nations are, of course, alert to these issues. As a consequence of the Russian threat, and amid growing concern over US commitments to the North Atlantic alliance, their combined defense budgets (including Canada) are now equal to just over 2 percent of their aggregated gross domestic product. Multiple nations are planning further increases: Poland expects to spend 5 percent of GDP in 2025; Germany recently voted to exempt defense spending from its “debt brake,” and the government announced support for defense spending (including relevant infrastructure and cyber capabilities) of 5 percent of GDP; France has set a target of 3.5 percent; and the United Kingdom has established a target of 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027 and 3 percent thereafter. For its part, the United States has called for “adopt[ing] a new 5-percent-of-GDP Defense Investment Plan,” which will be a central topic at the NATO summit in June.

Additionally, the European Union has determined to become a significant player in the defense arena. There is a newly created Commissioner for Defence and Space, and the EU is undertaking to provide 150 billion euros to member countries for defense. Further, the EU is planning to authorize countries to “trigger an emergency clause allowing them to make defense investments that push them over the bloc’s budgetary spending limits.” Exactly how much additional spending this would generate is not clear since, as of this writing, only twelve of the twenty-seven EU countries plan to use the emergency clause, and three of the larger countries—France, Italy, and Spain—do not plan to. Nonetheless, reporting on the European Commission’s tracking of member states’ defense plans indicates: “The European Commission is sticking to its estimate that member states could spend up to €650 billion on defence over the coming four years despite just half of governments requesting more fiscal headway to boost investments in the sector in time.”

As valuable as these actions are, it is important to recognize that even the most expansive budgetary plans do not translate into prompt, actual military capabilities. Initiatives must be transferred into actual budgets. Budgets must be approved by parliaments and then provided to defense ministries. Ministries must sign contracts. And companies with contracts must undertake production that often requires the scaling up of facilities.

Europe has a very long way to go on defense spending and capability requirements, with NATO asking “alliance members to raise their military capability targets by 30% as the organization seeks to boost its force posture, according to the [Supreme Allied Commander Transformation] in charge of defense planning at the 32-nation alliance.” Accomplishing these upgrades—to achieve a military posture credible and sufficient enough to offset Russian capabilities—demands a strategic approach that can be accomplished in a timely fashion and with a laser-like focus on the most critical and implementable capabilities. European nations are in a race against the clock and, consequently, must prioritize actions in the near and medium term to deliver capabilities that provide the greatest deterrence or, if necessary, actual military defense against a Russian threat.

To achieve this goal, NATO should focus on the four key challenges it currently faces. First, Europe has too few forces on the borders with Russia. Second, Europe, without US support, cannot marshal the forces necessary to gain sea control. Third, European nations are highly vulnerable to cyberattacks on infrastructure that is critical for sustained, effective military operations. Fourth, Europe’s defense industries lack the capacity to provide substantial amounts of effective weaponry in the near and medium term.

The NATO summit in June offers a forum for the alliance, and its constituent members, to adopt the necessary actions in response to these concerns. The required steps are set forth below.

I. Europe needs to promptly boost the efficacy of forces at its borders with or near Russia

As described above, Russia is in the process of enhancing its capabilities near the Baltic states and Finland. Doing so will provide the infrastructure and forces necessary for a conventional attack. But deterring or defeating such an attack—and especially repelling not expelling an attack—requires an effective NATO forward force posture. However, as Cavoli has stated:

Deterrence is most challenging in the land domain. Russia continues to reconstitute its conventional forces, and possesses advantages in geography, domain, and readiness. A conventional fight with Russia will be decided on land, and it would likely begin with a comparatively large Russian force positioned on a NATO border in order to negate traditional U.S. and NATO advantages in, and preferences for, long-range, standoff warfare. Therefore, NATO, including USEUCOM, must be postured to blunt Russia’s ability to rapidly mass numerically superior land forces.

To establish the necessary posture that Cavoli envisions, European nations should take the following actions, all of which can be accomplished in the near and medium term and all within existing or planned budgets. These actions should be undertaken irrespective of any decisions by the current US administration regarding American forces for Europe.

First, NATO European nations need to undertake a massive buildup of unmanned aerial vehicles. The use of drones has completely changed the nature of battle—as demonstrated by their role in the Russia-Ukraine war: Drones now kill more soldiers and destroy more armored vehicles in Ukraine than all traditional weapons of war combined, including sniper rifles, tanks, howitzers and mortars, Ukrainian commanders and officials say.

Just as the United States is planning for extensive use of unmanned vehicles in the Indo-Pacific should there be a conflict over Taiwan, and as Ukraine has done in its own defense, NATO needs to have a large and effective unmanned vehicle inventory available for use in the event of war with Russia. Ukraine is utilizing millions of unmanned vehicles. NATO needs a comparable supply. (A large-scale capacity for ammunition production is also needed—and discussed below in the defense industrial section.)

Second, NATO nations that border Russia and Belarus must establish effective obstacles—including land mines—to blunt a Russian attack. Useful lessons can be drawn from the Ukraine conflict, where mines have been utilized by both sides, and from the Korean context, where the defense of South Korea is supported by mines. Five Baltic nations—Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—are in the process of withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, which bars the use of anti-personnel mines (anti-vehicle mines are allowed). The sooner mines are emplaced on the borders with Russia and Belarus, the stronger NATO deterrence and defense will be.

Third, some European forces should move forward on NATO’s eastern flank. Germany is planning to have a brigade stationed in Lithuania by 2027. The United Kingdom should position one of its brigades currently in England to Estonia, where the UK already has a brigade headquarters leading a multinational force. In Latvia, where Canada leads a multinational force, France could bring forward a brigade. There could be arrangements other than mobilizing UK or French forces, but the key point is to add forward forces ready for a conflict if necessary. These actions will be necessary to meet the requirements of the NATO Force Model calling for “well over” 100,000 forces in up to 10 days and 200,00 in 10–30 days.

Fourth, equipment for European forces needs to be prepositioned in or near the Baltics and Poland to be readily available in the event of conflict. Prepositioning could be on land—as the United States currently does in several places in Europe—or the equipment could be placed on maritime prepositioning ships, again following the US approach which worldwide includes seventeen prepositioning ships.

Fifth, Europe needs to establish an equivalent to the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) pursuant to which US airlines “contractually commit to . . . augment Department of Defense airlift requirements in emergencies when the need for airlift exceeds the capability of military aircraft.” Creating a European equivalent would be particularly valuable for moving personnel to fall in on prepositioned equipment as recommended above.

In terms of the proposed prepositioning and the European version of CRAF, it is worth noting that while mobility by rail and motor vehicle has long been identified as a challenge for NATO, and while the European Union has undertaken a mobility initiative that has reduced a certain amount of bureaucratic obstacles, little has been accomplished to meaningfully enhance physical mobility. For just one example, the “completion of Rail Baltica, an alternative 870km (540 miles) north-south railway link [through the Baltic states], has been postponed from 2025 to 2030 and is facing massive cost overruns.”

II. Europe needs to enhance its capability for sea control

In the event of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific, United States naval forces would play a major role, thereby calling on much or all of those forces for the European theater to be engaged in that arena. European maritime forces would therefore need to make up the resulting gaps in NATO’s four seas—Baltic, Black, Mediterranean, and North—as well as in the Atlantic and in the Barents Sea. European navies have excellent capabilities, including, for example, French and UK aircraft carriers and submarines from multiple countries extending beyond France and the United Kingdom to Norway, Sweden, and Germany, among others. As an illustration of European maritime capabilities, Cavoli testified that NATO operations in spring 2025 relied solely on approximately 20 European ships, and he had “zero U.S. ships working for [him] as SACEUR.”

The issue for NATO maritime forces, therefore, is not so much one of upgrading capabilities but rather one of mass. European navies are relatively small. That challenge is susceptible to solution, however, by utilizing unmanned maritime vehicles as part of NATO’s maritime operations. The value of unmanned surface vehicles has been demonstrated by the United States through Task Force 59 operations in the Gulf and Windward Stack (now transitioned to Southern Spear) operations in Latin America, where USVs have provided highly effective surveillance capabilities critical to maritime domain awareness. More dramatically, Ukraine has utilized USVs successfully to attack and neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

NATO itself has recognized the value of unmanned capabilities and has begun operations with unmanned surface vehicles through its Baltic Sentry activity: “NATO launched Baltic Sentry, a new military activity in the Baltic Sea which aims to improve Allies’ ability to respond to destabilising acts. The activity brings together Allied navies, maritime surveillance assets, and private sector operators to ensure real-time situational awareness and rapid response capabilities across the Baltic Sea’s vulnerable zones.”

According to media reports, approximately twenty USVs are taking part in Baltic Sentry, and NATO has established Task Force X to further these capabilities. In a conflict, much larger numbers of unmanned vehicles would be required just for maritime domain awareness—and even larger numbers would be necessary if lethal capabilities were to be included, as Ukraine is successfully doing in its conflict with Russia. Accordingly, NATO must urge nations to substantially increase their unmanned surface fleets and to add unmanned lethal capabilities to the existing surveillance capabilities.

III. Europe needs to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructures fundamental to defense operations

NATO’s military capabilities are reliant on the effective operations of key critical infrastructures, including the electric grid, pipelines, transportation capabilities (rail, seaports, and airports), and information and telecom systems. Those systems, however, are susceptible to Russian cyberattack. As the recent US Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community states: “Russia’s advanced cyber capabilities, its repeated success compromising sensitive targets for intelligence collection, and its past attempts to pre-position access on U.S. critical infrastructure make it a persistent counterintelligence and cyber attack threat. Moscow’s unique strength is the practical experience it has gained integrating cyber attacks and operations with wartime military action, almost certainly amplifying its potential to focus combined impact on U.S. targets in time of conflict.”

While the assessment focuses on US infrastructure, comparable vulnerabilities exist in Europe. Moreover, given the “no limits” relationship between Russia and China, it is entirely possible that China’s very formidable cyber capabilities could be used in support of a Russian attack against NATO.

To be sure, in a conflict, cyberattacks are unlikely to be definitive in and of themselves. Ukraine has sustained many such attacks and has continued its defense against Russia. The operational technologies running critical infrastructure are resilient in the sense that they generally get disrupted but not destroyed by a cyberattack—and so can be reconstituted.

Still, disruption can have far-reaching and even catastrophic consequences—especially in the early days of a conflict when NATO would be engaged with bringing the necessary forces into place to repel a Russian attack. Critical infrastructures companies like port or railway operators do not have the expertise to respond to a high-level cyberattack on their own. A coordinated public-private set of actions would be required.

There are currently three overlapping sets of activities intended to bring about the necessary resilient cybersecurity for European private sector infrastructures:

NATO formally recognized the importance of cyber as an operational domain in 2016 and has undertaken a variety of initiatives since then. At the 2023 “Vilnius Summit, Allies . . . committed to more ambitious goals to strengthen national cyber defences as a matter of priority, including for critical infrastructures.” Most recently, NATO has said it will establish the NATO Integrated Cyber Defense Center to combine NATO’s existing cyber efforts and to engage industry partners from across the alliance as well. But this activity is not expected to be complete until 2028, and it is far from clear what degree of effort it will be undertake to ensure the resilience of key critical infrastructures.
Twenty-three of the thirty-two NATO nations are members of the European Union and therefore subject to the EU requirements on cybersecurity. EU regulations require that “essential and important entities should adopt a wide range of basic cyber hygiene practices, such as zero-trust principles, software updates, device configuration, network segmentation, identity and access management or user awareness, organise training for their staff and raise awareness concerning cyber threats, phishing or social engineering techniques.”
NATO nations have national cybersecurity programs, illustrated by France’s National Cybersecurity Agency [ANSSI] and the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Defence Centre. Each of these (and the other national cyber agencies) undertakes to provide support to private sector entities, though the specifics vary according to the country. For example, the NCDC “support[s] the most critical organisations in the UK, the wider public sector, industry, SMEs as well as the general public. When incidents do occur, we provide effective incident response to minimise harm to the UK, help with recovery, and learn lessons for the future.”

A recent analysis set forth a series of key actions required to protect critical infrastructures necessary for NATO military operations. None of those actions should wait until 2028 for NATO’s establishment of its Integrated Cyber Defense Center. Most crucially: “NATO ultimately needs a mechanism for planning and implementing cyber operational collaboration among alliance members and with the private sector.”

In establishing such collaboration, NATO should “prioritize involving private sector entities that have a key operational role, including unique insights that could support operational activity as well as direct operational capabilities.” Key aspects of such collaboration would include:

identifying and engaging the highest-priority infrastructure assets to ensure that they are sufficiently investing in resilience and have the highest level of government support in order to protect national security and economic productivity; and
establishing “sector-specific councils or working groups that include representatives from member states, industry partners, and relevant NATO bodies. These groups could facilitate the exchange of threat intelligence and best practices, enhance collective defense capabilities, and streamline coordinated responses to cyber incidents affecting multiple NATO countries.”

Additionally, a focus on technological capabilities will be important. As the report states, “New innovations can help to provide visibility into both operational and information technology, using artificial intelligence to quickly learn what normal activity looks like and detecting anomalous behavior.”

Beyond the foregoing recommendations, four further actions will be important:

NATO networks as well as key critical infrastructures should all strictly adhere to the requirements for “zero trust architectures” that reduce the abilities of adversaries to compromise network capabilities. As noted above, the EU’s NIS 2 standard calls for zero trust, but it will be critically important to ensure that this requirement is being effectively put in place (including for non-EU nations). Achieving that goal will require a certification system backed up by red teaming to determine whether the particular system is in fact highly capable.
NATO should be ready to undertake an expanded effort akin to the United States’ “Hunt Forward” activity, which works with allies and partners to identify and eliminate malware in key cyber systems.
It will be necessary for NATO not only to focus on cyber defense but also to undertake to disrupt the offensive cyber capabilities that Russia would utilize against the alliance. As previously described: “The actual implementation of NATO’s cyber offensive capabilities is by nations through a process described as the ‘sovereign cyber effects provided voluntarily by allies.’ . . [Utilizing] this approach allows allies to support NATO commanders with cyberattacks, but to keep to themselves (as they choose), the particulars of their offensive cyber methods.. . . . However, in conditions of conflict, the value of wartime cyber offensive operations may benefit from broader coordination with kinetic operations.”
NATO should also undertake to ensure that both its own information technology systems and those of the critical infrastructures upon which it relies transition to so-called “memory safe” software inasmuch as two-thirds and more of cybersecurity issues derive from the use of unsafe code. This cannot be accomplished immediately, but the United States Defense Advanced Projects Agency has developed the “TRACTOR” program which will automate the transition from the widely used C language to the memory safe RUST language.

Achieving the NATO-private sector collaboration described above, including the necessary operational and technological changes, is crucial for wartime success. However, while it would be difficult enough to establish an effective NATO-private sector cyber relationship, there are further significant obstacles given both the national and European Union cybersecurity roles. Analytically, a NATO-EU collaboration should be achievable since all share a desired outcome: resilience to a Russian (or Chinese) cyberattack.

Practically, however, NATO-EU collaboration often devolves into multiple meetings without consequential on-the-ground impact—and NATO is not without fault as its approach to national cyber requirements has been more aspirational than operational or technical. It will be a critical test for European defense—and for the leaders of NATO, the EU, and the private sector—to see if cyber resilience can in fact be enhanced or whether it will fall prey to bureaucratic dysfunctionality.

IV. Europe needs prompt enhancement of its defense industrial capabilities

Europe’s defense industrial base needs substantial and immediate enhancement. As the Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness stated, “The defence industry is too fragmented, hindering its ability to produce at scale, and it suffers from a lack of standardisation and interoperability of equipment, weakening Europe’s ability to act as a cohesive power across the bloc.” In recognition of these deficiencies, individual European allies and the European Union have pledged to enhance their defense production and capacity. But many of those much-needed initiatives will take time—to send sufficient demand signals to industry, to ramp up industrial capacity, and to field actual capabilities to ensure allied warfighters are appropriately equipped. Time, however, is a very expensive commodity for a Europe facing a reconstituting Russia. Speed is critically important.

In the short and medium term, European allies need a sober assessment of what capabilities must be fielded quickly and which capabilities can reasonably be produced on the continent. As a first step, Europe should look to Ukraine for lessons learned on how to ramp up defense production quickly and which capabilities have been particularly effective against Russia. As discussed above, unmanned vehicles play an outsized role on the modern battlefield, and maintaining robust ammunition stockpiles is essential. Ukraine mass-produces UVs—at a volume of four million drones annually. European allies should undertake to promote defense industrial initiatives that deliver unmanned vehicle capabilities at comparable scale as promptly as possible.

European allies could use the planned increases in defense budgets for investments in facilities for UV production. Such facilities can be stood up relatively quickly. By way of example, in the United States, Anduril is building a so-called “arsenal plant” to produce tens of thousands of autonomous weapons systems annually. The plant is expected to cost less than one billion dollars and to be operational in approximately eighteen months. Anduril is considering standing up a similar facility in the United Kingdom, but there are a number of European companies, such as Helsing in Germany or Leonardo in Italy, that could step up production of unmanned vehicles with the appropriate financial support. Investing in such facilities, and ramping up capacity across Europe, would dramatically strengthen Europe’s capabilities for any conflict on NATO’s eastern flank.

Alongside an industrial base in need of immediate and substantial enhancement, Europe is woefully low on artillery and ammunition rounds. The Ukrainian military uses approximately two million 155 mm artillery rounds annually. Through the European Act in Support of Ammunition Production, the European continent is supposed to scale up bloc-wide ammunition production efforts to produce two million 155 mm rounds a year. However, this much-hyped initiative has struggled to deliver on its promises—and even if it were able to reach this benchmark, it would still fall short of the necessary artillery production to sufficiently resource Ukraine and allied militaries while simultaneously replenishing allied stockpiles.

Europe struggles to produce the requisite number of artillery rounds, in part due to systemic industrial capacity issues but also because of a global shortage of TNT and gunpowder. In the short term, Europe should authorize around-the-clock industrial shifts in munition factories to ramp up production. Additionally, European allies should explore innovative opportunities to cast artillery rounds and other munitions rather than relying on the traditional method of forging, as proposed in a recent Center for a New American Security (CNAS) report. Forging is a time-intensive process compared to casting, which is more flexible and allows for recyclable metal to be molded in a shorter time frame. Europe has a significant foundry industry that could be redirected to produce artillery rounds and other munitions. Overcoming the global shortage of TNT will require strengthening strategic supply chains with like-minded allies and partners—most notably Japan. In the longer term, European allies should invest in new munition manufacturing facilities and expand the number of TNT production facilities beyond its reliance on the existing Nitro-Chem plant in Poland. To be sure, European munitions troubles extend beyond 155 mm artillery rounds. However, the clear vulnerabilities in this artillery production underscore the necessity for Europe to take prompt and innovative action to scale its munitions production.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that air defense is crucial to safeguarding civilians as well as critical infrastructure. Europe has tried to bolster its air and missile defense through collaborative procurement programs like the European Sky Shield Initiative and now the ReArm Europe plan. However, in the past, such initiatives have had mixed success, as progress stalls over political divergences. For example, France has been openly critical of the European Sky Shield Initiative for prioritizing the purchase of US weapon systems over European systems. As European allies continue to disagree on key issues related to security and defense, allies at the national level must forge ahead by buying individual capabilities that meet NATO’s interoperability standards to ensure these systems can be integrated across the alliance. Some would be US systems, such as Patriot, and some would be European, such as the NASAMS system by Kongsberg or the newer Franco-Italian SAMP/T NG.

Lastly, even if Europe were to adopt all of these approaches tomorrow—at both speed and scale—it would likely fall short of the needed industrial capacity to field sufficient capabilities to deter or defend against Russian aggression. In the short term, Europe must cooperate with its allies and partners, both in North America and the Indo-Pacific region, to fill its stocks and provide other capabilities. Despite political headwinds, the United States remains the strongest defense industrial partner of Europe: Its systems are widely used, trusted, and meet interoperability standards established by NATO. The remedy for laggard defense industrial capacity on both sides of the Atlantic is greater cooperation—not isolationism.

Where national governments diverge on approaches, European military planners and industry partners should explore other opportunities to strengthen industry-to-industry ties. This approach would match European defense industrial ambitions by supporting European efforts to meet short-term capability targets while also investing the necessary capital in facilities to grow a healthy and robust European defense industrial base in the long term. To this end, efforts to harness advantages on both sides of the Atlantic in the form of co-production and co-development facilities are heating up. For example, in December, RTX partnered with MBDA to open the first Patriot missile facility in Germany—which is slated to begin producing over a thousand Patriot missiles for NATO allies annually. Opportunities like this allow Europe to quickly scale up facilities, while allowing European industries to offset some of the steep costs associated with building out new manufacturing plants. In the short term, Europe is equipped with capabilities at an accelerated rate while at the same time developing the requisite infrastructure to create for itself a healthier and more self-sufficient defense industrial base.

V. Conclusion

The transatlantic community agrees: Europe must do more to enhance its role in NATO. Taking the actions set forth in this issue brief will provide the necessary enhancement of European defense capabilities in the short and medium term to deter and, if necessary, defeat a reconstituted Russia.

About the authors

Board director

Franklin D. Kramer

Distinguished Fellow

Cybersecurity Defense Policy

Staff

Kristen Taylor

Assistant Director

Transatlantic Security Initiative

Europe & Eurasia European Union

Explore the program

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security Transatlantic Security Initiative

The post Immediate steps that Europe can take to enhance its role in NATO defense appeared first on Atlantic Council.

What explains the transatlantic rift? It’s all about threat perception.

Jason Davidson — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:24:49 +0000

NATO allies are preparing for their summit at The Hague this month amid a frenzy of promises about increased defense spending, following US President Donald Trump’s call for allies to spend an unprecedented 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. Since taking office in January, Trump has mused about pulling back US forces from Europe while signaling a willingness to improve relations with Russia and even seize Greenland, a territory of NATO ally Denmark.

European policymakers have reacted to Trump’s moves with shock and doubt about the US commitment to NATO, and some have stepped up their defense pledges accordingly. “We still believe that the ‘N’ in NATO stands for North Atlantic and that our European allies should maximize their comparative advantage on the continent,” US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week at the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore. “And thanks to President Trump, they are stepping up. An alliance cannot be ironclad if in reality or perception it is seen as one-sided.”

For its part, the European Union (EU) has approved a €150 billion defense funding loan program and allowed its members to exceed normal debt limits for military expenditures. Even before the EU’s moves, allies such as Poland and the Baltic States—who Hegseth called “model allies” in Singapore—were ramping up spending and sounding the alarm over the threat they face from Russia. But too many European allies have not yet increased their defense spending sufficiently.

What explains this contrast? Leading NATO allies (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) diverge from one another because they face different threats and levels of threat perception. These differences explain each ally’s major defense decisions (defense spending, military structure, and military posture) as well as the ally’s role in and relationship to NATO. I explore this issue more deeply in my forthcoming book on NATO, drawing from ninety-eight interviews with current and former policymakers.

NATO allies’ different threat perceptions can explain much of the current crisis within the Alliance, and they provide the backdrop for what could be a contentious summit.

The United States: China trumps Europe

The Trump administration sees China as the most significant state security threat to US interests. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment says that “China stands out as the actor most capable of threatening US interests globally.” The administration’s Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance reportedly focuses on the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as one of two priorities for the Pentagon, along with combating drug cartels.

The Trump administration has cited the threat from China to explain its European security policy. Hegseth said in February that the United States could not remain the primary guarantor of European security, telling allied military leaders in Brussels: “The US is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.” The Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance reportedly concludes that because of the focus on China, European allies must do more for their own defense.

This view of China can also explain the Trump administration’s policy toward Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark. Melting sea ice means that Greenland’s location will be critical for those seeking to control Artic sea lanes and it is home to large quantities of rare-earth minerals. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stressed that the United States would not use force to seize Greenland but only to protect it from encroachment by China.

This can also explain Trump’s significant, though inconsistent, turn toward Russia. Some have argued that the Trump administration is attempting a “reverse Kissinger,” aligning with Russia to weaken its ties to China. The Trump administration may even be turning toward Russia to pressure NATO allies into taking more responsibility for their own defense, as Victoria Coates, a former deputy national security advisor in Trump’s first term, has argued. Even though Trump has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is reasonable for European leaders to fear that a grand bargain between Washington and Moscow remains a distinct possibility.

Europe: Divided by diverse levels of threat

Europe is unable to defend itself without the United States. Europe lacks integrated air and missile defense, long-range precision strike, transport aircraft, as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. European allies are struggling to recruit, train, and equip sufficient troops for NATO’s new force model—doing so in the next decade without the United States would most likely be a bridge too far.

But even faced with these challenges, not every European NATO ally has shown the same level of urgency when it comes to increasing defense spending. The reason is that leading European allies face different threats and levels of threat, limiting the incentives of some allies to act.

The overwhelming consensus among Italian officials, for example, is that instability in the wider Mediterranean is the most important security threat facing the country. Because addressing this threat does not primarily entail military means, Italy has not felt an urgent need to increase defense spending in response to Trump’s policies. While Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced in April that Italy would spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense this year (up from 1.5 percent in 2024), no new funding has been allocated for this yet. What’s more, reporting suggests that the government could reach the 2 percent benchmark largely through accounting changes, such as including its Coast Guard in defense spending.

Meanwhile, from strategy documents and official statements, it is clear that Poland, Germany, France, and Britain all view Russia as their greatest security threat. However, they each have different levels of threat perception, which informs the differing approaches they have taken toward military spending.

Poland provides the starkest contrast with Italy. Warsaw plans to spend 4.7 percent of GDP on defense this year, up from 4.1 percent last year. Poland’s level of defense spending makes sense given the intensity of the threat it faces from Moscow and its proximity to Russia. Poland’s view is that only a US-led NATO can provide collective defense against the threat from Russia, so it is focused on pushing allies to comply with US demands to keep Washington committed to European security.

Concern that the United States could shift away has also led Germany to spend more on defense. Following Germany’s February election, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz led a successful effort to revise Germany’s constitution to allow borrowing above 1 percent of GDP for defense spending. On April 9, Merz announced a coalition agreement with the Social Democrats, which included a pledge to ramp up defense spending “significantly” to fulfill Germany’s NATO commitments. Germany views any US moves to withdraw from Europe with alarm, and Merz continues to insist that Germany and Europe do more to keep the United States engaged in NATO. Last month, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany will “follow” Trump’s demand that allies spend at least 5 percent of GDP on defense.

France’s independent nuclear arsenal gives it an added degree of security against the threat from Russia. While France has used the Trump administration’s statements to push for European defense independence, Paris has not reacted with urgency in terms of its own defense spending. French President Emmanuel Macron has called for a new NATO spending target of 3 percent of GDP on defense but has not proposed a new figure for French defense spending (currently at 2.1 percent of GDP).

While Britain’s nuclear arsenal would normally provide it with an extra measure of security against Russia, the United Kingdom relies on the United States for its nuclear submarines. As such, the British government has doubled down on its relationship with the United States. British officials have embraced Trump’s criticism of allies who underspend on defense, and Foreign Secretary David Lammy has called for a NATO that is “stronger, fairer, and more lethal.” Just prior to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to the United States in February, the British government announced that Britain will spend 2.6 percent of GDP on defense by 2028, up from 2.3 percent this year.

Preserving a mutually beneficial relationship

The United States’ greater focus on China and push for Europeans to take more responsibility for their defense are likely irreversible trends. But the NATO Summit in The Hague later this month provides an opportunity for the United States and its European allies to reaffirm their commitments to the Alliance amid these shifting dynamics.

First, the Trump administration should use the summit to work with its European allies on a phased and structured exchange of responsibility for European security over the next decade. Under such a plan, the United States would work with European allies to develop defense capabilities they do not currently have while maintaining the commitment of the US nuclear deterrent.

Second, Trump should take the opportunity to reassure European allies. He should affirm that the United States would come to the aid of any NATO ally that is attacked. Trump should also state plainly that his administration will work with Denmark to bolster the defense of Greenland and that it does not intend to acquire the island by force.

Third, European countries should use the summit to announce further commitments on defense spending. Following through on such commitments will entail costly domestic tradeoffs. The present moment requires courage: European leaders must make the case that significantly more defense spending is necessary because of the threat Russia poses and the United States’ turn toward the Indo-Pacific. Italy’s government in particular will have a challenging task. Because Italians are focused on threats from the Mediterranean, officials in Rome will have to make the case that Russia’s threat to European security matters for Italy. European governments like Italy’s can also make a compelling case that spending more on defense may boost overall economic growth.

If NATO allies take these steps at this year’s summit, they can help build a future Europe more capable of defending itself and an Alliance that better serves both US and European interests.

Jason Davidson is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He is also a professor of political science and international affairs and director of the Security and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The post What explains the transatlantic rift? It’s all about threat perception. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The world needs a maritime ‘elite league’ to combat rogue shipping

Elisabeth Braw — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:00:00 +0000

Key Takeaways

In April 2025, the International Maritime Organization approved an agreement reducing the shipping sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, making shipping the “first industry to legislate to decarbonize.”
That this happened without—and potentially despite—the United States signals that the mostly apolitical system that has regulated shipping since the 1950s is subject to the same geopolitical tensions weakening the postwar order.
With several large states undermining the organization, countries interested in curtailing the rise of shadow vessels and the associated risks of accidents and environmental damage should band together to keep their waters places where the highest standards apply.

A small group of nations established the International Maritime Organization in 1948 to create a modicum of global governance. Since then, IMO (as insiders call it) or the IMO (as most others call it) has fulfilled its task of functioning as a global parliament and secretariat for matters relating to ocean safety. Yet, like all other multilateral organizations, IMO depends on its member states’ goodwill and compliance. Today several large member states undermine the organization, and the United States left its negotiations over greenhouse gas reduction. IMO will continue to function as a steward of global ocean safety. But to achieve better maritime order, states should also join forces in coalitions of the willing or a maritime “elite league.” Countries in such formations could, for example, introduce stricter pollution or protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance rules.

Like many other organizations within the United Nations (UN), and the UN itself, IMO was established in the years immediately following World War II. Even with a Cold War rapidly forming, the world’s nations knew that they would need to share the oceans and that improving maritime safety was in everyone’s interest. Convening in Geneva in 1948, sixteen pioneering nations—ranging from Canada to Pakistan and including one country, Poland, from the emerging Soviet-led East bloc—formed the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). ¹

The Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization stipulated that the new organization would provide “machinery for co-operation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practices relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade, and to encourage the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety and efficiency of navigation. It would also “encourage the removal of discriminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting shipping engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce of the world without discrimination.”²

The IMCO’s mission was to facilitate safe and fair global shipping. It did so based on consultations and consensus-focused decisions by its members. The convention stipulated that “the functions of the Organization shall be consultative and advisory” and that the organization should “provide for the drafting of conventions, agreements, or other suitable instruments, and to recommend these to Governments and to intergovernmental organizations, and to convene such conferences as may be necessary.”³ That gave the IMCO’s secretariat no decision-making powers—decisions were to be made by the member states—and certainly no enforcement power.

In successfully founding the IMCO, the sixteen nations had proven that a shared maritime organization was possible even among nations that shared virtually nothing else. They were soon joined by a steady stream of other countries, with early joiners including nations as different as Austria and Myanmar.⁴

Mission: Facilitate safe and fair global shipping

The organization proved valuable. As Cold War power dynamics became more entrenched, global shipping continued to function, with ships able to call at any chosen port regardless of the port state’s geopolitical leanings, the ship’s flag state, or the ship’s country of ownership. Along the way, IMO’s members adopted a string of conventions that enhanced shipping safety, including the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter in 1972, Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in 1974, and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage in 1971 with an amended version in 1992.⁵ The latter forms the basis of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, a London-based multilateral organization that administers two compensation to victims of oil spills. Another marquee agreement—the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation—was adopted in 1990.⁶

In 1982, having decided that the name IMCO was bulky and confusing, member states renamed the organization the International Maritime Organization. It has continued to oversee the safety of global shipping, and the cargo traveling by sea has continued to grow. In 1980, ships transported 3.7 billion tons of cargo on international voyages; by 2023, the volume had grown to 12.3 billion tons.⁷

Today IMO is the world’s default maritime organization, though crucially it is not the custodian of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), known as the constitution of the oceans. One hundred and seventy-six of the world’s nations now belong to IMO; the only ones that do not are landlocked countries that have very low gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (such as Burkina Faso, $887), a tiny population (such as Liechtenstein, 39,850 residents), or both.⁸ Taiwan, which has a large maritime industry but is barred from joining the United Nations system as China considers it a renegade province, is also not a member. The IMO Assembly, which approves IMO’s activities and budget and elects IMO’s executive organ, includes all the organization’s member states and meets every two years

Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping, said, “What IMO has achieved has been remarkable, things like the MARPOL Convention [the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships] and so many other conventions and instruments. The decision-making process does take time, and it’s quite tortuous at times, but the whole idea is that the organization tries to work on a consensus. That means compromises, but it’s pretty effective.”⁹ It has indeed been effective. Even though the 176 member states have widely divergent views and priorities, IMO has managed to become a global protector of safe shipping, albeit a slow-moving one that lacks enforcement powers. Instead, like other UN agencies, it relies on its member states to follow the rules to which they have committed themselves.

Geopolitics, greenhouse gases, and an abrupt US exit

In April 2025, the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee convened in London to negotiate an agreement reducing the shipping sector’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The emissions account for about 3 percent of GHG emissions, and IMO member states had been debating and discussing stricter emission rules for several years. Intense negotiations at the April meeting eventually resulted in an agreement that “will progressively lower the annual greenhouse gas fuel intensity of marine fuels, and a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism requiring high-emitting ships to pay for their excess pollution.”¹⁰ The agreement is to be “mandatory for large ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total [carbon dioxide] emissions from international shipping.”

The agreement was adopted by a majority of member states (sixty-three, including the twenty-seven European Union (EU) members, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India, China, Norway and Singapore) voting in favor. Sixteen countries (including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia) voted against it, and twenty-five countries (including Argentina and Pacific Island states) abstained.¹¹ The agreement must be formally adopted by a two-thirds majority in October 2025; if that happens, it will enter into force in 2027.¹² However, an unusual event occurred during the negotiations. On instructions from Washington, the US delegation abruptly departed; the US government also sent a note to the other member states, urging them to reconsider their “support for the GHG emissions measures under consideration.” According to two people close to the process who spoke to the author, the US government privately put further pressure on countries to reject the agreement or abstain. Referring to the greenhouse gas emission proposal, the US démarche added, “Should such a blatantly unfair measure go forward, our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures.”¹³

Brian Adrian Wessel, the director general of the Danish Maritime Authority and leader of the Danish negotiating team, said, “Geopolitics entered IMO with these negotiations. There was a coalition of oil-exporting states led by Saudi Arabia and a group of sanctioned states comprising Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea that opposed the agreement, and then the US de facto joined them in trying to block it. So it was left to the rest of the member states, including the EU and China, to work together to find a solution.”¹⁴

He added, “IMO stood its ground with a significant majority vote. In this day and age, a multilateral agreement on green transition is not a given in any way. The first maritime regulation on greenhouse gas emission, passed with a vast majority, that’s historic.”¹⁵

Platten said, “This is the first time in around fifteen years that an IMO agreement went to vote. It was quite a moment to be in the plenary hall when that happened. But nonetheless, we have an agreement now, which makes shipping the first industry to legislate to decarbonize, putting a carbon price for the first time, and some reward elements to it as well. What other industries have done anything like that? The answer is none whatsoever.”¹⁶ He continued, “IMO is one of the last UN bodies which is still functioning as a multinational body. I think that’s because shipping needs to be globally regulated. It cannot do anything else.”¹⁷

IMO is one of the last UN bodies which is still functioning as a multinational body. I think that’s because shipping needs to be globally regulated.

Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping

The deterioration of the global maritime order

The US departure from the negotiations, however, reflected a wider reality. The global maritime order, which nations and the maritime industry have painstakingly constructed over the last century, faces serious travails. To be sure, commitment to maritime treaties has never been complete. Some shipowners and flag states have been indifferent or reckless when it comes to pollution by their ships and, especially in recent years, countries have regularly violated UNCLOS. That was the case with the 1980s Tanker War between Iran and Iraq; the shadow maritime war targeting Iranian and Israeli merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz; the Houthis’ attacks on merchant shipping in the Red Sea; and China’s maritime harassment of civilian vessels in the South China Sea.

But nations and companies have largely adhered to IMO’s overwhelmingly technical conventions. One reason for this compliance is that better safety practices benefit everyone. Another is that any ship calling at a port is subject to port state control, the maritime equivalent of a safety inspection, which means that independent inspectors register any rule violations. Owners and flag states must address these deficiencies before ships can continue their journeys.

As the rules-based international order continues to deteriorate, commitment to IMO rules is also slipping. Even though the MARPOL Convention bars ocean pollution (whether involving oil or other substances) by merchant vessels, the world’s growing shadow fleet willingly and systematically accepts a disproportionate risk of oil spills.¹⁸ In May 2023, the shadow tanker Pablo exploded off the coast of Malaysia, causing oil spills in local waters, and other shadow vessels have spilled oil elsewhere.¹⁹ Despite such dangerous incidents, IMO has been unable to ensure compliance with its rules—even though its member states include several “flags of extreme convenience” (my term) that primarily flag shadow vessels. Insisting on compliance is made yet more difficult by the fact that shadow vessels don’t call at ports of Western countries, where post state controls are typically fully implemented, but instead sail straight to their destination or perform ship-to-ship transfers before returning to their ports of origin. “It’s very tempting to start saying, if they don’t play by the rules, why should we then play by the rules?” Wessel noted.²⁰

Response options for nations committed to maritime governance

IMO member states could introduce proposals aimed at curtailing dangerous shadow vessel practices or, for that matter, proxy group attacks on merchant shipping. Indeed, some IMO member states are teaming up to at least bring attention to systematic violations. “We try to work closely together where we see such issues, whether it’s in Asia or in our own neighborhood, and then take it into the IMO,” Wessel said.²¹Interview with the author, April 22, 2025.²² Yet most attempts at strengthening rules or creating new ones are likely to be unsuccessful, as nations benefiting from the practices would vote against the measures and encourage other countries to do the same.

“What IMO can do is act as a facilitator,” Platten said. “Everyone wants safe shipping, and that’s what IMO regulates. People make grand statements at IMO, whether it’s on the Ukraine issue or anything else, but ultimately it’s a technical body that decides on regulation for shipping. It’s never at its best when there’s political grandstanding. It’s much better when it gets on with things as it did with the greenhouse gas agreement, which is people working late, late, late into the night to try and find some landing ground.”²³

Within IMO, a significant number of countries around the world are indisputably committed to maintaining and enhancing maritime governance. By definition, shipping encompasses the whole world, and IMO remains irreplaceable as the forum through which the world’s nations can maintain standards. However, it can no longer be assumed that all members want to enhance the global maritime order.

The fact that IMO depends on its global membership for any action, and that leading nations now openly undermine the maritime order, means there is a gap in global maritime governance. It’s clearly in no country’s interest to impose more governance on itself while other countries use the world’s oceans impeded by fewer rules, but countries could team up in self-selecting groups to enhance maritime rules in their waters.

For example, while UNCLOS’s right to innocent passage is sacrosanct, countries affected by the shadow fleet could collectively adopt pollution rules that go beyond MARPOL. The countries that could initiate such an undertaking include coastal states in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, as well as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and other countries whose territorial waters and exclusive economic zones shadow vessels regularly traverse.

As the shadow fleet has also led to systematic subversion of maritime incident insurance (known as the P&I club system), coastal states in different parts of the world now share the seemingly intractable problem that suspected shadow vessels sail through their waters with insurance barely worth the paper on which it is written. They, too, can team up to adopt stricter insurance rules. Adopting stricter pollution rules, P&I insurance rules, or both would enhance maritime safety without detracting from IMO. In that way, they would resemble initiatives by NATO member states that have a regional focus and take place outside NATO but don’t undermine the Alliance. They include, most prominently, the Joint Expeditionary Forces, which encompass ten northern European countries.²⁴

Sailing in safer waters

The International Maritime Organization serves the world’s nations and the shipping industry well, but it is undermined by growing geopolitical tensions and decreasing commitment to global rules and institutions. While IMO can continue serving a crucial function as the world’s default maritime convener, nations committed to the maritime order can enhance safety in their waters by forming coalitions of the willing that share, for example, stricter rules on pollution or P&I insurance. That would make sailing in their waters more expensive. It would also, however, help nations committed to the maritime order establish a maritime “elite league” in whose waters all maritime participants would know that the highest standards apply.

About the author

Fellow

Elisabeth Braw

Senior Fellow

NATO Resilience & Society

Featured project

Threats to the global maritime order

Learn more about the Atlantic Council’s project Threats to the global maritime order: Protecting the freedom of the seas.

Explore the program

1 “Member States,” International Maritime Organization, last visited April 25, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/ERO/Pages/MemberStates.aspx

2 “Convention on the International Maritime Organization,” International Maritime Organization, last visited April 25, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Convention-on-the-International-Maritime-Organization.aspx

3 “Convention on the International Maritime Organization,” International Maritime Organization, last visited April 25, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/Convention-on-the-International-Maritime-Organization.aspx

4 “50 Years of Review of Maritime Transport, 1968–2018: Reflecting on the Past, Exploring the Future,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2018, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtl2018d1_en.pdf

5 “International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage,” International Maritime Organization, last visited May 12, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-the-Establishment-of-an-International-Fund-for-Compensation-for-Oil-Pollution-Damage-(FUND).aspx

6 “List of IMO Conventions,” International Maritime Organization, last visited May 12, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/ListOfConventions.aspx

7 “50 Years of Review of Maritime Transport, 1968–2018”; “Review of Maritime Transport 2024,” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2024, https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2024

8 “Member States,” International Maritime Organization, last visited April 25, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/ERO/Pages/MemberStates.aspx; “GDP Per Capita (Current US$)—Burkina Faso,” World Bank Group, last visited May 12, 2025, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=BF; “Population, Total—Liechtenstein,” World Bank Group, last visited May 12, 2025, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=LI

9 Interview with the author, April 14, 2025.

10 Vibhu Mishra, “Countries Reach Historic Deal to Cut Shipping Emissions,” UN News, April 11, 2025, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162176

11 John Snyder, “The ‘Great’ Compromise: IMO Agrees to Global Carbon Price for Shipping,” Riviera Maritime Media, April 14, 2025, https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/the-great-compromise-imo-agrees-to-global-carbon-price-for-shipping-84527; “IMO Approves Net-Zero Regulations for Global Shipping,” International Maritime Organization, April 11, 2025, https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/IMO-approves-netzero-regulations.aspx

12 Mishra, “Countries Reach Historic Deal to Cut Shipping Emissions.”

13 Jonathan Saul, Michelle Nichols, and Kate Abnett, “US Exits Carbon Talks on Shipping, Urges Others to Follow, Document Says,” Reuters, April 9, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-exits-carbon-talks-shipping-urges-others-follow-document-2025-04-09

14 Interview with the author, April 22, 2025.

15 Interview with the author, April 22, 2025.

16 Interview with the author, April 14, 2025.

17 Interview with the author, April 14, 2025.

18 Elisabeth Braw, “From Russia’s Shadow Fleet to China’s Maritime Claims: The Freedom of the Seas Is under Threat,” Atlantic Council, January 23, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/from-russias-shadow-fleet-to-chinas-maritime-claims-the-freedom-of-the-seas-is-under-threat/

19 “Oil Suspected from Pablo Wreck Washes Ashore in Indonesia,” Maritime Executive, May 5, 2025, https://maritime-executive.com/article/oil-suspected-from-pablo-wreck-washes-ashore-in-indonesia; Braw, “From Russia’s Shadow Fleet to China’s Maritime Claims.”

20 Interview with the author, April 22, 2025.

23 Interview with the author, April 14, 2025.

24 “The Joint Expeditionary Force,” Joint Expeditionary Force, last visited May 12, 2025, https://jefnations.org/.

The post The world needs a maritime ‘elite league’ to combat rogue shipping appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Bayoumi in the Washington Post on strengthening US-Canada ties through defense cooperation

bgalicia — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 11:21:56 +0000

Adrienne Arsht National Security Resilience Initiative GeoStrategy Initiative

On June 5, Imran Bayoumi, associate director of the GeoStrategy Initiative, co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post with Greg Pollock, former acting deputy assistant secretary of defense, highlighting the importance of strong US-Canada relations for both countries’ economic and defense interests. They argue that one way to strengthen ties between the two neighbors is for Canada to boost its defense spending—particularly in the geopolitically critical Arctic region.

Staff

Imran Bayoumi

Associate Director

The post Bayoumi in the Washington Post on strengthening US-Canada ties through defense cooperation appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine just gave us a glimpse into the future of European defense

Frederick Kempe — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 11:00:00 +0000

Ukraine’s audacious attack on Russian strategic bombers this past weekend, damaging more than a third of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s capabilities, provided an encouraging glimpse into what should be the future of European and transatlantic defense.

Imagine a world in which Ukraine, working alongside European and North American partners, so convincingly wields advanced technological and defense capabilities that Putin stops his murderous war and agrees to a sustainable peace. That also would send an unmistakable message of transatlantic common cause to Russia’s partners: China, North Korea, and Iran.

However, that outcome can only be achieved if the European Union (EU), after decades of neglect, turns Ukrainian inspiration and a flood of new defense spending announcements into real capabilities and technological innovation. It will also require that the Trump administration unambiguously back its European allies at the June 24-25 NATO Summit in The Hague as the Alliance makes new spending and defense production commitments.

‘A fusion of World War I and World War III’

The good news is that most NATO countries appear ready to agree at the summit to increase their defense spending to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2035, along with an additional 1.5 percent for defense- and security-related infrastructure. For its part, the EU has already approved 800 billion euros in new defense spending across the bloc over the next four years.

The bad news comes in three categories: production, policies, and politics. First, even a great deal more money won’t necessarily result in the production, innovation, and capabilities required to deter Russia. Second, policies and regulations on both sides of the Atlantic provide impediments to effective defense industrial cooperation. Third, political strains and distrust have increased across the Atlantic over US President Donald Trump’s trade wars and his administration’s decision to withhold arms and intelligence from Ukraine for about a week in March.

Trump’s phone call with Putin yesterday, after which he said without comment that the Russian leader felt a strong need to respond to Ukraine’s strikes inside Russia, didn’t help. Ukraine and its European partners would have preferred clear recognition that Putin started the war, has the power to end it, and should do so now.

Even with all of that said, Europe’s most immediate and important task is to demonstrate that it can provide for its own security, given the Trump administration’s understandable reluctance to do more for US allies than they are willing to do for themselves.

“Ukraine has shown that modern warfare is a fusion of World War I and World War III—combining trench warfare with cutting-edge technologies,” write Ann Mettler and Mark Boris Andrijanič in a must-read piece in Euractiv. “Unless Europe learns to master both, its security, sovereignty, and very survival will be at stake.”

Few know the stakes better than Mettler, a former director-general at the European Commission, and Andrijanič, a former Slovenian minister for digital transformation and a current Atlantic Council Europe Center senior fellow. They outline a compelling course of action to reverse EU security weaknesses.

“As Russia’s aggression edges closer to EU borders and the transatlantic alliance weakens,” they write, “Europe stands at an inflection point.” European defense budgets are finally increasing, they note, “but if past performance is any indication of future results, there is cause for concern.”

For example, despite hundreds of billions of euros of investments into digital and green agendas, the EU remains reliant on American software and Chinese hardware, from solar panels to batteries. “This reveals a harsh truth,” they write, “spending alone doesn’t guarantee innovation. And in defence, failure won’t just be costly—it could be fatal.”

‘Something we should have done years ago’

I came away from a recent Atlantic Council delegation trip to Brussels, where we met with top NATO and EU defense planners, with new hope for European security but also growing concern about transatlantic division in the face of persistent Russian threats.

It’s clear that Europe has been shocked into action by two leaders: Putin and Trump. The Russian president’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was a wake-up call for a complacent Europe. Yet it was only Trump’s return to the presidency this year that injected Europe with a greater sense of urgency.

It’s telling that Mettler and Andrijanič don’t include a transatlantic dimension in their proposals in Euractiv. I asked Andrijanič about this omission, and he said, “Unless Europe gets serious about defense, we can’t be a credible partner for the United States.” He added, “Suddenly we are doing something we should have done years ago. Europe is now laser-focused on developing as many critical capabilities as possible—and doing it fast.”

In their Euractiv article, Mettler and Andrijanič list as their priority the creation of a common market for defense, stretching from the EU to partners such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and, in particular, Ukraine. For the moment, the only European-headquartered company among the global top ten defense firms is the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems.

The authors also call for new EU regulatory guidance that would remove the stigma against defense and dual-use investments to unlock private and institutional capital. They also want to shake up Europe’s “sluggish defense procurement rules and procedures.”

To achieve greater innovation, the authors want to create a European ecosystem of “established industry players, startups and scaleups, investors, governments, and research institutions.” One intriguing proposal is for a dedicated collaboration platform to create a “wall of drones” along Europe’s eastern flank, so that Ukraine’s weekend success isn’t a one-off but is underpinned by “a coordinated deployment of autonomous drone swarms for surveillance and defense.”

The authors seize upon two successful US models to accelerate this European effort. One would be the creation of a European DARPA, modeled on the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has focused on developing emerging technologies for national security. They would do that through transforming the existing European Defence Fund into “a better-resourced, more agile, and mission-driven institution.”

A second idea would be to use the US Defense Innovation Board, first chaired by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as a model for a European Defence Innovation Council. This high-level, independent group would provide strategic advice to the EU and member states on defense-related tech.

Write the authors, “The good news for Europe is that the world’s leading defence innovator is already among us, and on our side—Ukraine. Despite intense wartime pressures, the country has emerged as a frontrunner in drone technology, cyber warfare, and the integration of artificial intelligence on the battlefield. In contrast to Europe’s slow and costly model of incremental innovation, Ukraine excels in frugal innovation to rapidly deliver scalable, cost-effective, and highly impactful solutions.”

Two awful words

One way or the other, the upcoming NATO Summit will be one of historic importance. What’s positive is an Alliance-wide commitment, after pressure from Trump, for greater spending aimed at producing cutting-edge capabilities. What’s negative is insufficient recognition that transatlantic common cause on Ukraine and beyond is more crucial than ever.

Speaking to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dayton, Ohio, last week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte put it this way: “Russia has teamed up with China, North Korea, and Iran. They are expanding their militaries and their capabilities. They are preparing for long-term confrontation.”

Quoting Winston Churchill from 1936, Rutte asked, “Will there be time to put our defenses in order? . . . Will there be time to make these necessary efforts, or will the awful words ‘too late’ be recorded?”

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post Ukraine just gave us a glimpse into the future of European defense appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Why Iraq should build bridges with its ‘new’ neighbor, Syria

Shermine Serbest — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:34:01 +0000

Since the opposition ousting of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Western powers have cautiously embraced Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa as the country’s new legitimate leader. The new Syrian government, consisting of technocrats and high-profile former dissidents of the Assad regime, is actively reaching out to international actors in a quest to rebuild bridges.

The Syrian president’s diplomatic visits to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Jordan, France, and Turkey seemed auspicious and held promising potential. However, his potential in-person attendance at the Arab Summit in person was the center of some controversy.

Baghdad’s position on the rapid developments in Syria is split between two camps: The official government and that of the powerful non-state actors.

The Iraqi government’s initial response to Syria was cautious, including the closure of border crossings and the deployment of troops to the 630-kilometer border with Syria. But Baghdad slowly shifted towards a more pragmatic approach and eventually sent its officials on formal visits to Syria, in a move that acknowledged the legitimacy of the new regime. These efforts culminated with the Iraqi prime minister’s April meeting with al-Sharaa in Doha, where he extended a formal invitation to the Arab Summit, which Baghdad hosted in mid-May.

Alternatively, Iran-affiliates in Iraq have vocally opposed such normalization efforts. Over fifty members of the Iraqi parliament, many of whom have close ties to the Shiite Coordination Framework, signed a petition to reject al-Sharaa’s Baghdad visit, and parliament member Mustafa Sanad even organized a protest against his presence at the summit. Additionally, militia leaders such as Qais al-Khazaali and Abu Ali al-Askari, who command militia groups that were active in Syria until recently, posted direct threats on their X accounts towards the Syrian president. Media platforms with Iranian affiliations have been working in parallel with politicians to promote a disinformation campaign about al-Sharaa’s criminal record in Iraq, by issuing fake documents and tampered proof of incarceration.

Iraqi militias have a long history of hostility towards some of the Sunni militant groups with which al-Sharaa was involved in previous years. These Islamist Jihadist groups rose to power in Iraq in 2014 and took over one third of Iraqi territories, subsequently the liberation of these areas was a lengthy and costly process for the Iraqis. Iraqi militias continue to use the same justification for their military intervention in Syria in the past years, which is the need to “protect” holy Shiite sites, and continue to insist that it remains a pressing issue even under the new regime.

Quiet hostilities and alliance of necessity

Under Baathist control, Syria had longstanding grievances with Iraq. Before the spark of turmoil in Syria, for example, Iraq’s former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had accused Assad of sending militants and terrorists into the country. But economic ties, in part due to the movement of 1.2 million Iraqi refugees into Syria during the early aughts, softened hostilities. During this period, economic trade between Syria and Iraq reached its peak at four billion US dollars annually. At the time, 60 percent of Iraq’s imports came from Syria.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

But this dynamic shifted drastically after 2011 with the eruption of the Arab Spring and the anti-Assad uprising in Syria. Iran seized the opportunity to broker a new relationship between the two countries, where political and security interests were tied and emphasized, and sectarian fault lines were deliberately exploited. Iraqi militias, along with Iranian forces and the Assad regime, took part in suppressing the rebels’ seizure of Syrian cities during these years. Over fifteen Iraqi militias, with just over 75,000 fighters, were estimated to have participated in battles in Syria over thirteen years. In parallel, Iraqi territories provided a safe land corridor for Iranian reinforcement and personnel traveling to Syria, and three domestic drug trafficking corridors from Syria and Iran to neighboring countries.

Economic relations endured despite the security shakeup. Even after 2011, Iraq continued to import agricultural products from Syria in addition to food, textiles, plastic goods, medicine, and many other commodities. Syrian products comprised 80 percent of Iraqi markets; however, this percentage declined to only 5 percent after December 2024.

The new reality and future prospects

Iraq underutilized its agricultural capacity for years and depended on Syria for food security. By solidifying economic relations with the new Syria through trade agreements, transportation infrastructure, and meaningful investments, Iraq can further multiply the fruits of cooperation and guarantee water, food, and fuel security.

Since the historic overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria, Baghdad has sent three delegations with high-profile officials to meet with officials from the new government in Damascus.

The latest, in April, held the highest significance and marked the new Iraqi pragmatist approach to the recent developments with its neighbor. It included more specialized Iraqi officials like the head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, along with representatives from the Department of Border Enforcement, the Ministry of Trade, and the Ministry of Oil.

This delegation directly addressed economic interests in Syria, most notably the Kirkuk-Baniyas oil pipeline. Iraq currently exports oil through Basra Sea ports, land, and the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline. However, resuming operations on a direct pipeline to the Mediterranean would result in substantial economic gains, increasing Iraq’s oil export capacity by 300,000 Bpd. Negotiating access for Iraq to the Syrian Mediterranean ports will diversify Iraq’s options in trade and the global supply chain. It will also decrease the costs of importing European goods and commodities to Iraq and other parts of the region.

Meanwhile, as the West slowly opens up to the new Syrian government, Iraq should also take part in the country’s efforts to rebuild as an influential neighbor. Iraq’s energy sector, in particular, is an institutionalized and mature one, and Iraq’s national oil companies can offer their investments in Syria’s natural resources. Iran’s power decline in the region not only left a political vacuum but also an economic one, too. And as Tehran’s expenditures in Syria ranged from thirty billion US dollars to above fifty billion dollars, and Iranian investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars were under construction at the time of regime change.

Additionally, Iraq hosts between 800 thousand to a million foreign workers, many of whom transfer their earnings in dollars back to their home countries— mostly southeast Asia—draining eight billion US dollars of foreign currency. Baghdad now has a golden opportunity to strengthen both its economy and regional ties by facilitating the legal entry and employment of Syrian workers into the private sector. As a source of affordable and skilled labor, Syrian workers can help meet domestic labor demands in the private sector, while their earnings, reinvested into the Syrian economy, can further deepen economic interdependence between the two countries.

The security question

However, stability must come first before economic prosperity.

While the international discourse is focused on minority rights and power-sharing guarantees, Iraq and Syria have a deeper understanding of the security challenges that are unique to them. The Iraqi-Syrian border witnessed the rise and fall of extremist groups that were behind some of the deadliest conflicts for civilians in recent years. The Iraqi government failed for years to secure the porous border with Syria and control illicit economic activities that thrived on the vulnerable periphery. Furthermore, the northern parts of both countries have suffered spillover effects of conflict between their neighbor, Turkey, and Kurdish rebel groups.

After the global coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) successfully defeated the militant group, al-Hol prison and similar camps isolated ISIS families and the remnants from their surrounding populations. This ended up dragging many innocent civilians into these enclosures, including three thousand missing Yazidi women and girls who are believed to be entrapped in this camp and whose situation remains a pressing issue. Moreover, two thousand Assadist soldiers fled to Iraq in the first few hours of the regime’s fall, and were later returned to Syria by the Iraqi authorities.

Such incidents are likely to continue in Syria’s transitional period and can only be combated through cooperation with Iraq. Lastly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s explicit comments about dividing Syria into four administrations to establish a so-called ‘David’s Corridor’ pose a direct threat to Iraq’s border integrity and internal security. Iraq—among other regional actors—must establish a joint approach to refute this hollow and short-sighted political agenda. A fragmented Syria risks becoming a persistent epicenter of regional instability.

Policy recommendations for the Iraqi government

At this turning point in the region’s history, Iraq has a rare opportunity to start a new chapter with Syria.

Welcoming the Syrian president in Baghdad to the Arab Summit could have served as the first practical step towards a new relationship, but this was not achieved due to continuous militia intimidation. The threats made by non-state actors resulted in the withdrawals and cancellations of many heads of state from the summit, including al-Sharaa, and instead sent low-level delegations. The Iraqi government should implement mechanisms to regulate and hold accountable militias and other non-state actors whose public positions contradict official state policy and risk undermining Iraq’s diplomatic relations.

Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa attends an interview with Reuters at the presidential palace in Damascus, Syria, March 10, 2025. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Opening effective channels of communication between the Iraqi and Syrian governments will be critical in efforts to stabilize and normalize. The Iraqi government should continue with regular, high-profile official visits to Syria. This will ensure Iraq’s input in critical and strategic decisions faced by the Syrian government and guarantee a seat at the transition table.

These communications should be inclusive beyond government officials and extend to civil society, local communities, and tribal or religious leaders. In the midst of the current storm of misinformation and disinformation around the situation in Syria, granular relationships will help local communities adapt and respond to rapid transitions, especially with population movement and voluntary return of refugees.

To truly deepen a partnership between the two countries, Iraq should also work closely with the new Syrian regime to establish a high-level security cooperation, including immediate investments in border crossings and towns, to prevent the resurgence of extremist groups and smuggling activities across the joint border. These areas were neglected and under non-state actors’ control for years, and government takeover will mean a regulated, taxed, and monitored movement of goods and travelers.

And to enable prosperity after ensuring security, Baghdad should continue to identify economic opportunities and solidify them with memoranda of understanding, trade agreements, and investment deals. In the six months since the regime change in Syria, there has been a significant investment momentum and capital interest from regional and international actors. Therefore, supporting the Syrian-Iraqi business council has become a pressing necessity, as the efforts to rebuild Syria are mounting through direct foreign investments, as the Syrian economy recovers after lifting the sanctions. Feedback from businessmen on both sides will provide input on market gaps, demand potential, stakeholder engagement, industry trends, and trade dynamics. All of which can be used as a blueprint for economic cooperation.

Part of this picture should include Baghdad legalizing the status of Syrians who wish to stay in Iraq as part of the labor force. Iraq’s Ministry of Labor should create a legal framework to incentivize Syrian skilled workers’ employment in the Iraqi private sector. Doing so will curb the influx of undocumented and unregulated immigrant workers from outside the region, limit foreign currency outflow, and meet the private sector employment needs.

Over the past thirteen years, Iraq’s role in Syria has been marked by hardship and complexity. Now, the current Iraqi administration holds the opportunity to turn a new page and help shape a future defined by peace and regional cooperation.

Shermine Serbest is an Iraqi researcher and international relations analyst. She leads many data-focused projects covering Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East, focusing on misinformation and disinformation and the political economy.

The post Why Iraq should build bridges with its ‘new’ neighbor, Syria appeared first on Atlantic Council.

US interests can benefit from stronger congressional ties with the Caribbean

Wazim Mowla, Maite Gonzalez Latorre — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 18:00:00 +0000

DOWNLOAD PDF

Toplines

The Caribbean’s geographic proximity to the United States—as well as its use as a transit point for US citizens, goods, and financial services—makes it a crucial hub for US national interests. However, the relationship has suffered from inconsistent and infrequent assistance. Changes in US policy priorities bring ever-changing adjustments to US engagement, leaving the Caribbean, its leadership, and its institutions with insufficient time to benefit from US policy action.
For Caribbean countries, policy continuity is critical for implementation and to see tangible and meaningful development. The region’s small populations and markets, vulnerability to natural disasters and changing global commodity prices, and limited institutional capacity slow the pace of receiving and utilizing development assistance and support.
Underpinning US-Caribbean ties with stronger US congressional engagement can provide needed longevity to the relationship. Congressional actions—like newly appropriated resources and committee hearings—can bring tangible benefits to US-Caribbean relations.

Where should the US Congress put its attention?

The heterogenous nature of the Caribbean offers various opportunities to strengthen relations with the region and, by extension, advance US interests. From natural gas to geothermal energy, Caribbean countries offer new opportunities for US investment. Reducing crime and gang proliferation across the region can protect US citizens traveling abroad and stem the potential flow of illicit goods and services.

Energy security

The United States can strengthen its positioning in the Caribbean by supporting regional energy security. At current estimated reserves, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago house almost 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with further offshore exploration expected to increase the size of reserves. At the same time, other countries require reliable power generation–which can be provided by liquified natural gas (LNG) imports–to provide resilience to their electricity grids during natural disasters, improve economic competitiveness, and to underpin ambitions to add renewables to their energy matrix.

Here, the United States will find opportunities on three fronts. First, natural gas exploration opportunities, liquefaction infrastructure, and building pipelines and LNG storage are areas where US oil and gas companies and mid-size service-based companies can invest. Second, imported oil from Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago can be low-cost and competitive options vis a vis other suppliers to satisfy growing US energy demand and supplement domestic shale supply in Texas and Midwestern states. Finally, congressional members can work with the Southern Caribbean hydrocarbon producers to support energy security in Europe and lessen demand for Russian energy resources by increasing cargo exports to EU members.

Greater Caribbean energy security can also lead to lower electricity prices, which can benefit constituents of US congressional members traveling to the Caribbean and potentially reduce migration to the United States. Most of the region (except for Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago) pays some of the highest electricity in the Americas (see Figure 3), which is on average, double or triple what US consumers pay. At the same time, electricity costs can account for almost 70 percent of a hotel’s utility due to air conditioning, lighting, and heating, among others.

Therefore, to keep profits stable, the high costs translate to the consumer–in this case, US tourists. This means that by bringing down electricity costs and lowering the cost to travel and having overnight stays in the Caribbean, US tourists benefit and have more purchasing power to buy in-country goods (most of which are imported from the United States). Further, reducing electricity prices can stem Caribbean emigration flows to US shores given that high costs of living are a key migratory push factor.

Reducing violent crime and gang activity

Security concerns in the Caribbean are on the rise. Figure 4 shows that Caribbean countries have high homicide rates (per 100,000) relative to their Latin American neighbors. Rates have been on the rise due to increased gang proliferation and illegal imports of small arms–many of which originate from the United States. For example, countries like Trinidad and Tobago, declared a state of emergency late 2024 due to increased gang activity and the usage of high-powered assault weapons. Gang proliferation is also on the rise. While Caribbean countries do not house large gangs, smaller gangs pervade the region, using the informal ports of entry to move illicit guns, goods, and services. In 2021, Jamaica identified 379 different gangs with 140 named in 2023 for Trinidad and Tobago. The decentralized nature of criminal and gang networks in the region inhibits Caribbean governments and police forces’ abilities to combat gang operations. Further, gangs in the Caribbean, especially in Jamaica, are turf oriented. This allows smaller gangs to gain a foothold in local communities, sometimes acting as community leaders and providing needed social services and protection from rival gangs.

Addressing the Caribbean’s security challenges can protect US citizens traveling to the region and curb gang activity and illicit trafficking before they reach US shores. Travel destinations for US citizens, such as Jamaica and islands in the Eastern Caribbean are among the most violent in the region. Therefore, improving citizen safety in the Caribbean ensures US citizens’ safety as well. Given that gun-related activities are a primary driver of citizen insecurity, one solution is for US agencies to work closer with Caribbean defense and police forces to improve monitoring, tracking, and seizures of illegal small arms.

Further, stemming gang activity in the region can also disrupt transnational criminal organizations’ operations. Specifically, Caribbean countries are used as a transit point for drugs, many of which end up in the United States. Enhanced maritime security and interdiction in the Caribbean Sea can help interrupt illegal drug supply chains and weaken transnational criminal organizations. However, the capacity to monitor drug flows is a challenge. Partnerships with the United States to gain access to satellite imagery and drone technologies to identify drug shipment routes can provide Caribbean governments the needed tools to tackle drug flows.

Bottom lines

The challenges facing Caribbean countries are growing and have consequences that are not constrained to the region’s geographic borders, likely to directly or indirectly affect US interests. This can be avoided if there are consistent and strong partnerships between the Caribbean and the United States. This can and should start with stronger US congressional engagement to the region.
US congressional members should consider legislation that prioritizes a holistic strategy with appropriated resources to the Caribbean. While CBSI tackles security challenges, support is needed across the energy, infrastructure development, agricultural, and financial services, among others.
Given the importance of the Caribbean to US interests, the House Foreign Affairs Committee should consider a hearing that highlights new opportunities to strengthen US interests in the Caribbean and the broader US-Caribbean partnership.
Strengthening US-Caribbean ties start with building a foundation for a long-term partnership. US congressional engagement can help turn four-year policies into decades of friendship, all while protecting US interests along its “third border.”

Read the full issue brief

About the authors

Staff

Wazim Mowla

Fellow and Lead of the Caribbean Initiative

Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

Caribbean China

Staff

Maite Gonzalez Latorre

Program Assistant

Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center

Americas Education

Explore the program

The Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center broadens understanding of regional transformations and delivers constructive, results-oriented solutions to inform how the public and private sectors can advance hemispheric prosperity.

The post US interests can benefit from stronger congressional ties with the Caribbean appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Pentagon’s software approval process is broken. Here’s how to fix it.

Hannah Hunt — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 17:07:52 +0000

In today’s rapidly evolving battlefields, the Department of Defense (DoD) faces a paradox: It is awash with advanced technologies, yet warfighters often wait months, even years, for approval to use the software they desperately need. Why? The bottleneck often lies in a well-intentioned but outdated process: the Risk Management Framework (RMF) and the painful path to achieving an Authority to Operate (ATO).

The ATO process, designed to safeguard national security systems, is rooted in sound principles. But in practice, it has become a procedural obstacle course—one that sidelines innovative software with lengthy, bureaucratic delays. Having gone through my fair share of ATOs across the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps, I can attest that this process needs serious reforms. From mission planning tools to logistics dashboards, critical capabilities are too often stuck in limbo because of inconsistent, manual, and subjective risk determinations. For instance, this process has stalled the use of critical Identity Access Management software such as Okta. These software enable zero trust enforcement, rapid user authentication, and centralized access control across multi-domain, cloud, and on-premise environments without significant delays and bandwidth constraints into key warfighting systems.

To ensure US warfighters receive the tools they need in a timely fashion, the DoD should invest in updated technical training for cybersecurity professionals and implement automated, continuous security checks on software. But for these reforms to succeed, the DoD will need to institute a broader cultural shift among the cybersecurity and acquisitions workforces toward recognizing compliance as the crucial aspect of US national security policy that it is.

A subjective standard of risk

RMF is the US government’s structured approach to ensuring information systems are secure and resilient before they are allowed to operate within government networks. It was designed to replace checklist-style compliance with a risk-based decision-making process. Under RMF, systems go through several stages—categorization, control selection, implementation, assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring. At the heart of the process is the ATO—a formal decision by an authorizing official that a system’s security posture is acceptable for use. To reach this decision, program teams must document security controls, undergo assessments by independent cybersecurity experts, and respond to findings. The intent is to ensure systems are secure before they are fielded—but in practice, the process often results in extended delays, overly cautious reviews, and inconsistent standards across organizations.

One of the most challenging aspects of the ATO process is the subjectivity of risk determination. What is deemed an acceptable risk by one authorizing official may be an unacceptable liability to another. With no shared standard of risk tolerance, system owners must often start from scratch depending on who sits in the approval seat. This variability leads to costly rework, long delays, and disillusioned program teams. Worse, it creates a culture where innovation is stifled not by bad technology, but by indecision and fear.

This is not just a bureaucratic issue; it’s a mission-impact issue. Delays of twelve to eighteen months for an ATO mean that a new targeting application, mission planning software, or AI-enabled intelligence tool never reaches the unit that needs it. When marines or soldiers are using outdated or spreadsheet-based tools while Silicon Valley technologies sit behind compliance gates, something is broken. Compliance activities do have their place. They provide a framework and a set of standards that system owners should utilize. But compliance activities make up only one facet of a resilient security posture.

When it comes to the documentation for this process, the only thing consistent about it is its inconsistency. Each security control assessor, information systems security manager, and authorizing official has their own preferences for how security controls, and security requirement guides should be documented. Even when software as a service systems have received accreditation in one military service, the ATO often does not carry over to other services, requiring the process to start over again at each service.

Across most systems in the DoD, ATOs are manual one-time reviews that only look at a snapshot in time rather than monitoring software continuously. What’s more, this inadequate review takes a significant amount of time, labor, and resources. It requires a team of cybersecurity professionals to manually review and analyze all ATO documentation to meet compliance thresholds. Because there are few security assessor teams across the DoD, there is often a delay in getting the third-party assessor on schedule to conduct the manual review.

These one-time ATO reviews, which often approve a software for one to three years, are not useful for tracking a system’s long-term security posture. In fact, leaving a system approved for this long without further review increases its security risk. Continuous monitoring is a key step in the RMF, but it is often haphazardly implemented, with security scans sometimes occurring only monthly or even quarterly. Moreover, authorizing officials ultimately accept the risk with critical or high vulnerabilities to keep systems available for users. Instead, ATO and security posture should be continually assessed through an agreed-upon standard for security guardrails and thresholds. This continual assessment should in no way be manual. Rather, it should be baked into the day-to-day software development lifecycle through automated regression, quality, and security testing with each delivery of code.

The talent gap in modern cybersecurity

Compounding the problems with the ATO process is a talent management challenge. Many cybersecurity professionals tasked with evaluating and authorizing systems are not trained in modern software development or cloud-native architectures. Developments such as the shifts to hybrid cloud, containerized applications, and infrastructure as code have dramatically outpaced cybersecurity workforce training.

Security professionals steeped in legacy systems may treat every cloud deployment as a threat, rather than an opportunity for enhanced resilience, scalability, and automation. As a result, the process designed to manage risk often ends up misunderstanding it—focusing on outdated indicators instead of real attack vectors. In one of the ATO renewals I supported, our cybersecurity assessor subject matter experts didn’t know about cloud-hosted Kubernetes technologies, which are widely implemented across DoD software organizations. They also did not understand how to implement the Kubernetes security technical implementation guide, even though they were supposed to be assessing our security compliance. As a result, the first few days of the assessment were spent teaching assessors about containers, Kubernetes, microservices, and ephemeral IP ranges before the ATO process could move forward.

The DoD can’t automate trust, but it can automate verification. And that’s where the changes to the process must begin.

Recommendations for reform

To speed up the delivery of secure software, the DoD must rethink how it defines and manages risk. The following actions would make the ATO process more efficient, ensuring that warfighters can use the software they need to meet mission success.

Invest in talent management and training. The DoD must invest in a new cadre of cyber professionals who understand development security and operations, continuous integration/continuous deployment pipelines, and cloud-native patterns. This starts with developing targeted training, incentives for continuous learning, and career pathways that reward technical skills over legacy tenure. It also requires an incentive structure that holds authorizing officials accountable for delayed ATO timelines, especially for software-as-a-service products that have already received ATOs in other organizations.
Automate guardrails and thresholds. To embrace a continuous ATO framework, programs should implement automated security checks that enforce zero trust principles, identity policies, and vulnerability scanning. They should also require logging standards directly in the pipeline. When software is built with these guardrails from the start, this reduces the need for manual reviews, bolstering confidence in the system. That way, when code is pushed and meets the predefined security guardrails, it can go straight into production environments.
Reduce redundant documentation. Much of the RMF burden is paperwork for paperwork’s sake. By adopting living documentation generated from automated pipelines—like real-time architecture diagrams, test coverage, and security telemetry—the Pentagon can save thousands of hours that are currently being wasted on static Word documents no one ever reads.

The SWFT strategy: A moment for culture change

The DoD’s new Software Fast Track (SWFT) methodology, announced on May 5, offers a hopeful roadmap. SWFT aims to make software development more agile by implementing regular software releases, modern and modular architectures, and outcomes-based measures that meet warfighter needs. But to be truly transformative, it must be paired with a culture shift across the acquisition and cybersecurity communities.

Acquisition and cybersecurity personnel must move away from compliance as a box-checking exercise and toward compliance as a byproduct of good engineering. The future lies in continuous ATOs, risk quantification tools, and AI-assisted cybersecurity—if the Pentagon is willing to invest in people and process changes.

If the DoD wants to outpace its adversaries and empower its warfighters with the tools they need, it must treat secure software delivery as a warfighting imperative—not a compliance chore. The ATO process, as it stands today, is a bottleneck the United States can no longer afford.

The call to action is clear: upgrade the workforce, automate security, and embrace a cultural change toward cybersecurity compliance. SWFT provides an opportunity—now it’s time to put it into practice.

Hannah Hunt is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and a distinguished technical fellow at MetroStar Systems. She was previously the chief of product at the Army Software Factory under Army Futures Command and chief of staff at the US Air Force’s Kessel Run.

The post The Pentagon’s software approval process is broken. Here’s how to fix it. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Stephen Rodriguez Joins AI+Expo Panel on Government Procurement Reform

clee — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:23:08 +0000

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

On June 3, Stephen Rodriguez, Senior Advisor at Forward Defense and Director of the Commission on Software-Defined Warfare, joined a panel at the AI+Expo to discuss “Reindustrializing America via Government Procurement Reform.”

He was joined by Eric Lofgren, Staff Member, U.S. House Armed Services Committee; Scott Friedman, Vice President of Government Affairs at Altana Technologies; and Mike Manazir, Vice President, Federal at Hadrian.

Fellow

Stephen Rodriguez

Senior Advisor

Defense Policy Defense Technologies

The post Stephen Rodriguez Joins AI+Expo Panel on Government Procurement Reform appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The UK Strategic Defence Review lays out an ambitious roadmap for reform. Will the government deliver?

AM Sir Christopher Harper, KBE, RAF (Ret.) — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 15:06:10 +0000

By publishing its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review (SDR) on Monday, the United Kingdom has taken a positive step toward the reinvigoration and reform of its defense posture. Recognizing the perilous nature of the geostrategic scene, drawing lessons from the war in Ukraine, and seeking to enhance its leading role in NATO, the review is rigorous, thoughtful, and compelling; it offers one of the more realistic assessments of the United Kingdom’s security posture in recent memory. Its success, however, will hinge on funding and follow-through.

The SDR was written independently by Lord George Robertson, a former UK defense secretary and NATO secretary general; General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of the UK Joint Forces Command; and Fiona Hill, a foreign policy expert and former senior director for Europe and Russia at the US National Security Council. It benefits from the authors’ deep expertise and freedom to speak frankly.

In my assessment as a former Royal Air Force senior officer and director general of the NATO headquarters International Military Staff, I find the review blunt and refreshingly free of political gloss while still being infused with strategic depth. It offers a sobering analysis of the threats Britain faces and a coherent and comprehensive plan to deal with them.

If the UK media coverage of the review is anything to go by, then it has already been successful in promoting a national debate on the severity of the strategic risks the United Kingdom and its allies face. One of the review’s core aims is to foster a “total defence” culture, an understanding that security is not the sole preserve of the armed forces but a collective national responsibility.

No more “hollowing out”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer echoed this whole-of-society message in a speech he delivered in Glasgow on Monday to launch the SDR. In the speech, he warned that the United Kingdom must prepare for a dangerous decade ahead. The United Kingdom would become, he said, “a battle-ready, armor-clad nation, with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities, equipped for the decades to come.” Indeed, the review is laced throughout with the concept of “NATO first” and the United Kingdom’s aspiration to play a leading role in the Alliance.

On capabilities, the review outlines a serious agenda for restoring UK military strength after years of “hollowing out.” Among the most significant commitments is the acceleration of the United Kingdom’s sovereign nuclear warhead program (at a cost of £15 billion) to ensure that the country maintains an independent and credible deterrent. This is paired with equally serious investment in conventional capabilities, including the commitments to produce seven thousand long-range and cruise missiles and to construct six new munitions factories.

The SDR further calls for the United Kingdom to become a leading technology-enabled defense power, with an integrated force that deters, fights, and wins through constant innovation at wartime pace. To achieve that, it proposes a “three Is” model: integrated (rather than joint) forces, which are innovation-led and backed by industry. It emphasizes that greater attention must be given to the space, cyber, and electromagnetic domains. It also proposes making the army ten times more lethal by 2035 by exploiting autonomous systems and a “digital targeting web,” all informed by lessons learned from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The government has also pledged £1.5 billion for the modernization and refurbishment of military living accommodations. This, together with a move to take a whole-force, skills-based approach to workforce planning, would constitute long-overdue investments that could begin to address the current crisis surrounding the recruitment and retention of personnel.

None of the review’s recommendations reflect a marginal upgrade. Striking the appropriate balance between mass, speed, and resilience has returned to relevance alongside the need to reinvigorate stockpiles, munitions manufacturing, autonomous systems, and the United Kingdom’s technological edge. As demonstrated by the war in Ukraine, all these factors will increasingly define combat effectiveness. The SDR further recognizes the need to radically transform defense procurement processes and practice. For Britain to remain a serious military power, addressing these issues is both overdue and essential.

Finding the funding

Crucially, all sixty-two of the SDR’s recommendations have been accepted by the UK government—an indication, at least on paper, of genuine resolve.

And yet, despite the soundness of the review and the seriousness of its ambitions, an inevitable question mark remains over how these recommendations will be funded.

The government’s pledge to raise defense spending to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2027 is a step in the right direction. This review is unique in recent British history for being accompanied by increases rather than cuts in the budget. But this is still only a step. The longer-term ambition to reach 3 percent of GDP is not backed by binding Treasury policy or formal financial commitment. Moreover, it seems to hinge on a “defence dividend” of economic growth from a revitalized defense industrial base. Such an aspiration is not enough. In the face of a deteriorating strategic environment, Alliance members are likely to demand a minimum of 3.5 percent of GDP expenditure on defense at the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague, which could lead to the United Kingdom falling behind the level of spending expected of a leading NATO power. Effective deterrence depends on credibility—and credibility hinges not on promises but on funded and delivered capabilities.

This financial dimension is especially critical in light of shifting US priorities. While the United States is unlikely to totally withdraw from NATO, there is a looming sense that Washington’s focus is inexorably moving away from Europe and toward the Indo-Pacific. Successive US administrations—regardless of party—have made clear that they expect European allies to carry more of the burden for their own defense. This has been brought into stark relief by the current US administration. A more self-reliant and militarily capable Europe is, therefore, no longer a theoretical objective—it is a strategic necessity.

For Britain, this means more than incremental increases in spending. It means making hard political choices and long-term industrial commitments now. The SDR lays out what needs to be done. The government has signaled its agreement. The next step—the most important one—will be putting money behind this critical endeavor.

Air Marshal Sir Christopher Harper is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He previously served in the Royal Air Force, including as the UK military representative to NATO and the EU in Brussels and as director general of the NATO headquarters International Military Staff.

The post The UK Strategic Defence Review lays out an ambitious roadmap for reform. Will the government deliver? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

What Lebanon’s municipal election results mean for Hezbollah

David Daoud — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:37:06 +0000

Lebanon’s political machine is moving again.

In May, the Lebanese concluded country-wide municipal and mayoral elections—their first in nine years—on the heels of Joseph Aoun filling Beirut’s two-year presidential vacancy, and an uncharacteristically speedy appointment of a prime minister and cabinet.

Mere momentum should not be equated with long-term progress towards stabilization, particularly with respect to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The municipal election results did not demonstrate the prominent militant group’s outright dominance over Lebanon’s Shiites. However, Hezbollah nevertheless retains preponderant popularity among them and influence over their electoral and political choices. However, as Hezbollah dubbed them, these elections were a “promotional event” for the real prize: the May 2026 legislative elections. If the group can then expand upon its recent electoral success, and if Aoun’s interminable dialogue with Hezbollah over its arms ever becomes serious, then it can leverage its popular and political weight to steer those discussions toward an outcome allowing it to retain its arms.

Unpacking the results

Hezbollah boasts that its sweep of the municipal and mayoral elections in Beirut, Baalbek-Hermel, and south Lebanon was a virtually unmitigated “tsunami.”

At face value, the group’s claims are true. In south Lebanon’s Nabatieh and South Governorates, Hezbollah’s joint electoral list with the Amal Party, dubbed the “Development and Loyalty” list, ran unconstested and won 109 of 272 municipalities by default. In some municipalities, this victory was due to overwhelming local support for Amal and Hezbollah, and in others, to pressure from those parties forcing opponents to withdraw their candidacy or forgo running altogether.

The Amal-Hezbollah lists also took the overwhelming majority of the remaining municipalities, where the elections came down to a contest, with the exception of a handful of seats. But even there, the self-described Amal-Hezbollah Shiite Duo largely did not lose out to outright ideological opponents, apart from Amal’s loss of two municipal seats in Deir Al Zahrani to the Communist Party. Instead, in many cases, the group lost to familial or clan lists, otherwise seemingly neutral on the question of Hezbollah’s private arsenal.

In the Sidon District’s Zrarieh, for example, Development and Loyalty won only six of the fifteen contested seats against the opposition, development-focused “Build It Together” list. But opposition figure Riad al-Asaad—who has previously bemoaned American-led attempts to weaken Hezbollah as “an Israeli goal” and who backed Build It Together— insisted that “competition [with Hezbollah] isn’t over the choice of resistance, but development.”

These successes replicated earlier wins in the Baalbek-Hermel Governorate, which witnessed significantly higher voter turnout over the last municipal elections in 2016. Here, Development and Loyalty won all eighty municipalities—twenty-eight by default, twenty-nine through electoral contests, and twenty-two where independent pro-Hezbollah lists competed with each other. In many cases here as well, the Amal-Hezbollah list faced off against ostensible independents, but who were nevertheless ideologically aligned with Hezbollah, as in Bednayel, where Development and Loyalty confronted the explicitly pro-Hezbollah “Loyalty to the Resistance” list, or in Brital, where the Hezbollah-Amal backed “Brital Families” list faced openly pro-Hezbollah “Loyalty and Development” list.

For example, Hezbollah-backed candidates swept the municipal council after a hard-fought electoral battle in the city of Baalbek. But voting numbers painted a more complex picture: of 37,142 eligible voters—22,573 of whom are Shiites—a range of 11,674-12,199 voted for Development and Loyalty, while the political opposition list “My City Baalbek” garnered 5,258-5,802 votes. The latter only attracted four hundred to 790 Shiites, compared with 11,290 Shiites for Development and Loyalty, demonstrating the continued loyalty of Hezbollah’s sectarian base. Meanwhile, Hezbollah increased its inroads into Baalbek’s Sunni population, drawing close to 1500 of their votes, and widened its victory margin over My City Baalbek from the 2016 municipal elections.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

But these results, good as they are, were far from the unmitigated success that Hezbollah’s propaganda organs sought to spin. In a main Hezbollah stronghold like the city of Baalbek, the group should consider its victory margin too close for comfort, especially as voter turnout in the city itself, in sharp contrast to the District and Governorate level, stood at approximately 47.2 percent generally, and 53.51 percent among Shiites specifically. This was higher than 2016’s level of 44 percent turnout of 31,510 eligible voters. However, it was still low considering the group’s great efforts to encourage its base’s participation in an election painted as a referendum on Hezbollah’s arms and existence, occurring at a historical inflection point for Lebanon.

The electoral battles in the more populous South Lebanon and Nabatieh Governorates offered a starker warning to the group. These areas collectively witnessed similarly depressed voting levels—36.94 percent overall (43.17 percent in South Lebanon and 36.65 percent in Nabatieh) compared to 48.15 percent in 2016. Hezbollah’s results were also spottier at face value, with opposing lists, if not outright ideological opponents, making deeper inroads among the electorate despite ultimately failing to unseat the Hezbollah-Amal Duo.

The apathy factor

One plausible explanation is that Hezbollah has lost at least some of its ability to mobilize its loyal masses. This could stem, from, as some have alleged, growing Shiite discontent with the party, particularly over instigating the recent ruinous war with Israel—which could portend a massive backlash against Hezbollah coupled with sizable defections from its base’s ranks. But the materialization of this scenario depends on a complex set of currently absent factors, particularly the existence of a credible and unified Shiite opposition, with the means and ability to deliver on these people’s needs, and thus attract this alleged silent anti-Hezbollah majority.

It is more plausible that the depressed voter turnout had nothing to do with Hezbollah. After all, the silent—and allegedly anti-Hezbollah—majority of Lebanese southerners didn’t go out and vote for the group’s opponents either. They stayed home.

Therefore, rather than a silent vote against Hezbollah, their abstention seems to have stemmed from overall Lebanese political disillusionment and loss of hope in the system’s ability to bring about change, leading to complacency. In September of 2024, for example, Arab Barometer found 76 percent of all Lebanese “uninterested in politics,” while 45 percent described themselves as highly apathetic. Two years prior, 65 percent of Lebanese had even said they didn’t care if their country remained a democracy—more accurately, a procedural democracy—as long as it “can maintain order and stability.”

Political apathy isn’t ideal for Hezbollah. But a Shiite population as politically quiescent and disinterested as the rest of the Lebanese would not undermine the group’s political power, and is thus preferable to an actively hostile one. This, coupled with other factors, like fear of being caught in the midst of Israel’s ongoing military actions that escalated in the days preceding the election, and the difficulty of traveling to south Lebanon for voters displaced by the recent war, could have also impacted voter turnout.

Delayed disarmament

The municipal elections were the last in several significant, post-war milestones during which Hezbollah needed to demonstrate that it remains the primary political and social representative of Lebanese Shiites. But this victory is fragile, delaying, for now, he group’s disarmament, despite the calls for such action gaining increasing momentum. But delaying that prospect does not eliminate it altogether. That specter will continue to haunt Hezbollah unless and until it can expand its municipal election successes come 2026’s parliamentary plebiscite—sweeping all seats it contests while denying Shiite opposition figures any electoral victories, drive up the voting rate among its supporters, and broaden its share of the popular vote. It’s a tall order, but Hezbollah has long proven itself a learning organization, and it will use all the carrots and sticks at its disposal to achieve that result. Here, a combination of delivering on post-war reconstruction of predominantly Shiite areas damaged during the recent war with Israel, while cowing potential opponents with threats, legal action, and actual force, will prove critical to the group’s chances of success.

The question is, will its opponents likewise learn from their mistakes and failure to challenge the group’s Shiite hegemony at a time when they allege its sway over that sect is at its weakest ever—or will they once again rest on the laurels of their empty slogans and symbolic or imaginary triumphs, leaving the “Party of God” to once again be the victors?

David Daoud was a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs and a research analyst on Hezbollah and Lebanon at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

The post What Lebanon’s municipal election results mean for Hezbollah appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Putin’s punitive peace terms are a call for Ukraine’s complete capitulation

Peter Dickinson — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 21:42:17 +0000

Russian and Ukrainian delegations failed to achieve any meaningful breakthroughs when they met for peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. The event was not a complete waste of time, however. Aside from agreeing on another welcome round of prisoner swaps, the two sides also exchanged peace proposals that confirmed the complete lack of middle ground for any kind of meaningful compromise to end the fighting.

While Ukraine’s proposal laid out a fairly pragmatic vision based on battlefield realities and security concerns, Russia presented punitive peace terms that would reestablish Kremlin control over Kyiv and doom the postwar Ukrainian state to a slow but inevitable death. This uncompromising Russian position should serve as a wake-call for anyone who still believes Putin is negotiating in good faith. In reality, the Russian dictator is more determined than ever to destroy Ukraine, and is merely exploiting US-led peace talks in order to strengthen his hand and divide the West.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The demands unveiled by the Russian delegation this week in Istanbul came as no surprise and closely mirrored the conditions outlined on numerous prior occasions by Putin and other Kremlin leaders. Nevertheless, at a time when US President Donald Trump is publicly pressing for progress toward peace, the Russian decision to deliver such a maximalist memorandum sent a clear message of defiance to Washington DC.

As expected, Moscow reiterated its call for Ukraine to withdraw completely from four Ukrainian provinces that Russia currently claims as its own but has been unable to fully occupy. This would oblige the Ukrainian authorities to hand over a number of major cities and condemn millions of their compatriots to indefinite Russian occupation. Kyiv would also be expected to officially cede these regions together with Crimea, paving the way for international recognition of Russia’s conquests.

This crushing territorial settlement is only one aspect of Russia’s vision for the comprehensive dismantling of Ukrainian statehood. In line with Putin’s peace terms, Ukraine would be forced to accept limitations on the size of its army and on the categories of weapons it is allowed to possess. The country would be also be barred from joining any military blocs or concluding alliances with foreign nations. It does not take much imagination to guess what Putin has in mind for Ukraine once it has been successfully disarmed and internationally isolated.

Nor is that all. The Kremlin’s conditions actually go much further and aim to transform Ukraine from within in ways that would erase Ukrainian identity along with the country’s political independence. Moscow’s memorandum called on Ukraine to grant Russian the status of official state language, reinstate the privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church, and adopt a Kremlin-friendly version of Ukrainian history. Meanwhile, all so-called “nationalist” Ukrainian political parties would be banned, paving the way for the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

On the morning after this week’s bilateral meeting, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev confirmed the true objective of Russia’s participation in peace talks. “The Istanbul talks are not for striking a compromise peace on someone else’s delusional terms,” commented Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s powerful National Security Council. Instead, Medvedev stated that Russia’s goal was to secure victory and ensure “the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime,” which is widely recognized as Kremlin code for the Ukrainian state. “That’s what the Russian memorandum published yesterday is about,” he noted.

Medvedev’s frank appraisal of the Russian position won him sarcastic praise from US Senator Lindsey Graham. “Congratulations to Mr. Medvedev for a rare moment of honesty coming from the Russian propaganda machine,” commented Trump ally Graham. “I appreciate you making it clear to the world that Putin and Russia are not remotely interested in peace.”

It is hard to argue with Graham’s assessment. For the past few months, Putin has gone out of his way to demonstrate that he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. While Ukraine has accepted a US proposal for an unconditional ceasefire, Putin has repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, he has engaged in transparent stalling tactics that make a mockery of the entire peace process.

Away from the negotiating table, Putin has dramatically increased drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, killing and wounding hundreds of civilians. On the battlefield, his armies are currently engaged in the early stages what is shaping up to be one of the biggest Russian offensives of the entire war. These are not the actions of a man who seeks peace.

After this week’s fresh confirmation of Moscow’s undiminished imperial ambitions in Ukraine, it is now surely time to abandon any lingering delusions and accept that the Russian dictator will not stop until he is stopped. Putin believes he is on a messianic mission to extinguish Ukrainian statehood and revive the Russian Empire. He currently thinks he is winning this historic struggle and will not be swayed by Trump’s comparatively trivial talk of tariffs and trade deals.

The only thing that can change Putin’s mind is Western strength. As long as Putin is confident of eventual victory, he will continue. But if the alternative to a peace deal is a potentially crushing defeat, he may reconsider. To achieve this change, Western leaders must demonstrate a degree of collective resolve that has often been absent over the past three years. They must sanction Russia to the max and arm Ukraine to the teeth. This will require considerable political will and good old-fashioned courage in Western capitals. Ukraine will do the rest.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

After Ukraine’s innovative airbase attacks, nowhere in Russia is safe

David Kirichenko — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:55:58 +0000

Ukraine carried out one of the most audacious operations in modern military history on June 1, using swarms of smuggled drones to strike four Russian airbases simultaneously and destroy a significant portion of Putin’s bomber fleet. While the full extent of the damage remains disputed, open source evidence has already confirmed that Russia lost at least ten strategic bombers and possibly many more.

The attack highlighted Ukraine’s innovative use of military technologies and confirmed the country’s status as a world leader in the rapidly evolving art of drone warfare. Crucially, it also underlined Kyiv’s ability to conduct complex offensive operations deep inside Russia. This will force the Kremlin to radically rethink its domestic security stance, which could lead to the diversion of resources away from the invasion of Ukraine.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

According to Ukrainian sources, preparations for Operation Spider’s Web had been underway since late 2023. Ukraine was able to move a series of modified cargo containers into Russia along with more than one hundred first-person view (FPV) drones. The containers were then loaded with the drones and mounted on lorries before being moved into position close to Russian airbases. On Sunday morning, the green light was given and the drones were remotely activated, emerging from their containers to strike nearby Russian bombers.

The bombers targeted in these drone attacks play a key role in Russia’s air war and are regularly used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities. While Ukraine’s June 1 success will not bring this bombing campaign to an end, it may help save Ukrainian lives by reducing the number of available planes and forcing Russia to disperse its remaining strategic bombers to locations further away from Ukraine.

While any reduction on Russia’s ability to bomb Ukrainian civilians is welcome, the impact of Ukraine’s airbase attacks on the future course of the war is likely to be far more profound. Sunday’s Ukrainian strikes at locations across Russia have transformed the situation on Putin’s home front. Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than three years ago, Russians have grown accustomed to viewing the war as something that is taking place far away. That sense of security has now been shattered.

Eurasia Center events

Sungmin Cho: For Lee, the economy comes first, but expect foreign policy shifts nonetheless

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

This was not the first time Ukraine has struck deep inside Russia. For much of the war, Ukraine has been using its growing fleet of long-range drones to target Russian military bases and the country’s oil and gas industry. Russian Air Force hubs such as the Engels airbase in Saratov Oblast have been hit multiple times.

Ukraine’s attacks have gained momentum as the country’s long-range drone fleet has evolved and as Kyiv has developed its own missile capabilities. This mounting proficiency has not gone unnoticed internationally. Indeed, China reportedly asked Ukraine to refrain from attacking Moscow during the recent Victory Day parade on May 9, as Beijing was apparently unsure whether the Russians themselves could provide sufficient protection for the visiting Chinese leader.

Sunday’s operation represents a new stage in Ukraine’s efforts to bring Putin’s invasion home to Russia. By deploying large numbers of drones surreptitiously across the Russian Federation and activating them remotely, Ukraine demonstrated an ability to strike anywhere without warning. The consequences of this are potentially far-reaching. Russia must now increase security at every single military base, military-industrial site, command center, and transport hub throughout the country.

In addition to ramping up defensive measures around military infrastructure, Russia must also introduce further checks at the country’s borders and closely monitor all activity along endless highways stretching from Europe’s eastern frontier to the Pacific Ocean. This is a logistical nightmare. For example, thanks to Ukraine’s attack, all cargo containers must now be treated with suspicion. There are already reports of bottlenecks emerging at locations across Russia as alarmed officials inspect lorries in the hunt for more Ukrainian drones.

Given the colossal size of the Russian Federation, addressing the threat posed by Ukraine’s Trojan Horse tactics is a truly Herculean task. Russia’s vastness has traditionally been viewed as one of the country’s greatest strengths. The new form of warfare being pioneered by Ukraine could now turn this size into a major weakness. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that Ukraine does not “have any cards” in its war with Russia, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may just have played the ace of drones.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Experts react: What does South Korean President Lee Jae-myung mean for Indo-Pacific security?

Atlantic Council experts — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:30:30 +0000

No time for a victory party. Early Wednesday morning, Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung was named the winner of South Korea’s presidential election, and later the same day he will be sworn into office, without the typical two-month transition period. The election and immediate instatement follow a stretch of political upheaval in South Korea. In April, conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol was removed from office, after he declared a short-lived state of martial law in December 2024. So, will Lee’s leadership mean a calmer political future for the country? Looking at the wider region, how will the leadership shift from right to left affect South Korea’s policies toward the United States, North Korea, China, and Japan? Atlantic Council experts are on the job today answering these questions and more below.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Kayla Orta: Lee’s “pragmatic” approach comes as Seoul faces a more hostile security environment

Shawn Creamer: Military spending and shipbuilding are two areas of engagement with the Trump administration

Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi: Lee seems poised to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to regional security

For Lee, the economy comes first, but expect foreign policy shifts nonetheless

To understand Lee’s foreign policy orientation, it is more useful to compare his positions with that of former President Moon Jae-in, rather than that of Yoon, his conservative predecessor.

Lee’s foreign policy will generally align with the Democratic Party’s traditional approach, promoting dialogue with North Korea and maintaining stable ties with China. But he is notably more pragmatic than Moon. While Moon emphasized peace and inter-Korean reconciliation, Lee advocates conditional dialogue with Pyongyang, taking a step-by-step approach toward denuclearization. His foreign policy advisers, Wi Sung-lac and Kim Hyun-chong, are known more as internationalists than nationalists, reinforcing Lee’s pragmatic stance.

Lee prioritizes economic issues, and he has repeatedly stated that economic recovery is his top priority. During the campaign, for example, he pledged to establish an “Emergency Economic Taskforce” if elected. Given this focus, Lee is unlikely to pursue major foreign policy initiatives at first, avoiding Moon’s active diplomacy among Washington, Pyongyang, and Beijing.

South Korea’s foreign policy shifts may instead stem from external developments, especially if US President Donald Trump reengages with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Lee would likely support a third Trump-Kim summit and would not oppose US troop reductions if Washington insists. While such moves could reduce tensions on the Korean Peninsula in the short term, there is concern that North Korea might exploit weakened deterrence to launch limited attacks against South Korea whenever it sees fit, as occurred during the 2010 crises.

Taiwan issues will test Lee’s pragmatism. Under US pressure for support, he will likely exercise strategic ambiguity to the maximum—quietly discussing contingency plans with Washington while avoiding public commitments. He will neither support nor oppose United States Forces Korea’s strategic flexibility. At the same time, Lee is likely to emphasize South Korea’s acknowledgment of the “One China” policy to maintain balance in its relations with Beijing.

In sum, Lee’s foreign policy is marked by pragmatism and economic urgency, distinguishing him from Moon’s more ideological and nationalistic approach.

—Sungmin Cho, PhD, is a nonresident senior fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Sungkyunkwan University.

Lee’s “pragmatic” approach comes as Seoul faces a more hostile security environment

Lee ran on the platform of a “pragmatic” foreign policy, but whether his administration will be able to rise above the nation’s entrenched partisan divides to strengthen South Korea’s geostrategic position within the Indo-Pacific region remains to be seen.

Six months to the day since Yoon declared martial law, South Korean citizens took to the voting booths to elect a new leader. Lee’s win over the People Power Party nominee Kim Moon-soo heralds another pendulum swing in South Korea’s political leadership. As the liberal party returns to the presidency, the battle to address South Korea’s domestic political turmoil is only just beginning, and the nation’s fierce partisan divide is likely to continue.

The political aftermath of Yoon’s call for martial law shocked the nation, weakening confidence in South Korea’s decades-long democratic institutions. The next South Korean president will have a challenging five-year term ahead to reestablish public confidence in the government at home while simultaneously addressing South Korea’s foreign policy concerns abroad.

North Korea’s ongoing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs—and its expanded security partnerships with Russia and China—present an immediate and existential threat to South Korea. Seoul faces a more hostile security environment today than it did under Moon, Lee’s liberal predecessor who leaned into diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. Many in South Korea are increasingly concerned about North Korea’s “irreversible” nuclear arms buildup and more than 70 percent of polled citizens consistently call for South Korea’s own nuclear armament in the near future.

Amid growing regional insecurity, Seoul’s relationships with Washington and Tokyo will matter. Despite previous statements, Lee campaigned on continuing to strengthen South Korea–Japan relations, building upon his predecessor’s US–South Korea–Japan trilateral security cooperation to address the growing instability in the Indo-Pacific region. However, balancing proactive foreign policy and intensifying domestic demands, as previously seen, is not an easy task.

Overall, Lee’s “pragmatic” diplomacy may signal strategic policy investment in bridging the conservative-liberal political divide. Lee may yet step up foreign policy initiatives in South Korea’s interest, building upon his predecessor’s foreign policy agendas.

—Kayla T. Orta is a nonresident fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Military spending and shipbuilding are two areas of engagement with the Trump administration

Lee’s election as president of South Korea is an opportunity to restore domestic political stability and resurrect Seoul’s reputation on the international stage following the martial law declaration, impeachment, and court drama surrounding the removal of Yoon from office. Domestic stability is made possible more from the political unity of the executive and legislative branches of government under the progressive Democratic Party than from a popular mandate. Political unity will likely allow the South Korean government to break out of partisan gridlock and make gains on efficient and effective governance.

While Lee will have party unity, there is a sizable conservative opposition that maintains low degrees of trust in the more leftist elements of the Democratic Party, including the new president. Time will tell whether Lee governs more like the centrist candidate or the leftist opposition politician of his past.

If the past is representative of the future, Lee will progressively evolve toward the center on foreign policy over his five-year term, as his Democratic Party predecessor Moon did. Moon learned, despite a troubled relationship with Trump, that South Korean sovereignty was best served by close alignment with the United States rather than an arrangement that subordinates it to the People’s Republic of China. Moreover, Moon learned that a deal with the Kim regime in North Korea would not be worth the paper it was printed on. Regrettably for peace and security in Northeast Asia, the Korea-Japan relationship will likely remain cool under Lee for the duration of his term based on the entrenched views of the Democratic Party.

There is both risk and opportunity for Lee in South Korea’s alliance with the United States. Lee holds some strong cards if he plays them well.

South Korea already funds its defense at 2.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and it has one of the most capable armed forces of all US allies. Lee should set in motion an increase in defense spending to above 3 percent of GDP in 2026 and chart a path for this to increase to at least 3.5 percent by 2030, demonstrating that South Korea is the US security partner of choice. Continued maturation of the Korean armed forces will also position South Korea to defend its interests in a very difficult neighborhood, while meeting alliance transformation benchmarks and increased Korean roles in combined defense.

Second, Korean manufacturing is extremely strong, particularly in shipbuilding. Lee should leverage Korean dominance in shipbuilding to help Trump rebuild the US Navy, giving Trump a political win and assisting the United States in maintaining its global extended deterrence commitments. South Korean advanced manufacturing capacity offers additional opportunity for the United States and European rearmament efforts. Lee can leverage this assistance to advance Korea’s global economic interests on more favorable terms.

There are also risks to the relationship with Washington, especially if Lee and Trump have a personality conflict. Lee will also find trouble with the US relationship if he seeks to deepen Korea’s relations with China or is overly antagonistic to Japan, the other major US ally in East Asia.

—Shawn Creamer is a nonresident senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative, Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, and Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Lee seems poised to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to regional security

Lee’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election was expected, given his ability to court the centrist majority and the conservative camp’s feuds to field a united force. But while Lee’s election is a victory for the Democratic Party, his populist but realist orientation is likely to make him a different type of revisionist than his more ideological predecessor Moon. Still, given the controversies surrounding Lee, as well as uncertainties over his and the Democratic Party’s policies, the new administration will struggle to unite the deep divisions in South Korea.

On the foreign policy and security front, it is possible that the new administration will take a balanced and pragmatic approach rather than a revisionist one. During the campaign, Lee talked about peace on the Korean Peninsula and restoring the 2018 military agreement with Pyongyang—trademark positions of the progressives. At the same time, he recognized the importance of the alliance with the United States and trilateral coordination with Japan—priorities for the conservatives. Even though much of this balanced approach was certainly part of Lee’s election strategy, it also reflects the strong recognition within South Korea about the importance of US-Japan-South Korea trilateral security coordination; threats posed by North Korea, China, and Russia; and the limited prospects of improving inter-Korean relations.

While there are many uncertainties about the Lee administration, Tokyo and Washington should continue working with Seoul to ensure strong, resilient, and sustainable trilateral security cooperation, which is imperative for stability in the Indo-Pacific region.

—Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi is a nonresident senior fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative, an associate professor at Tokyo International University, and a senior adjunct fellow at Pacific Forum.

The post Experts react: What does South Korean President Lee Jae-myung mean for Indo-Pacific security? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

India-Gulf relations are muted—but mobilizing

Jonathan Fulton — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:12:36 +0000

The day the current India-Pakistan conflict ignited, with the April 23 terrorist attack by a Pakistan-based militant group on tourists in India-administered Kashmir, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Jeddah holding meetings with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

This was his third visit to Saudi Arabia as prime minister, and the focus was on enhancing a relationship that has grown significantly in recent years. Modi first went to the Kingdom in 2016 and then again in 2019, when the bilateral Strategic Partnership Council was established. This mechanism has been used to facilitate approximately fifty deals, including construction, telecommunications, and tech projects, and to establish a joint committee to bring one hundred billion dollars of Saudi investments into India.

With rising tensions between India and Pakistan, paired with the Israel war’s continuing destruction of Gaza, it’s natural that talk of India-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) relations has been muted lately. However, the depth of Indian-Gulf relations, combined with recent momentum behind these partnerships, creates a strong foundation for increased India-Middle East integration over the coming decades.

Asia–Gulf relations: Not just China

When we talk about Asia-Gulf relations, China tends to get the lion’s share of the attention. India, however, is a major Gulf actor. The non-resident Indian population in GCC countries reached nine million in 2024, accounting for 25 percent of Indian expatriates globally. There are longstanding social, cultural, religious, and family connections between the people of the Arabian Peninsula and South Asia, and this familiarity supports growing political, economic, and increasingly strategic cooperation.

In contrast, China remains an important partner but one with fewer tangible cultural ties. It is perceived as a more transactional actor, whereas India is deeply enmeshed in the social fabric of the Gulf.

The importance of these people-to-people connections gets augmented by the substantial economic relations. India’s GDP hit 3.56 trillion dollars in 2023, up from 2.68 trillion dollars in 2020, and is expected to grow by 6.5 percent in 2024. As a result, it consumes a lot more energy, and it is now the world’s third-largest consumer of oil, behind China and the United States. The Gulf countries, naturally, play a significant role in India’s energy security. Of the top five commodities exporters to India, the UAE is number one, Saudi Arabia is number two, and Iraq is number four. The volume of trade is significant. In 2023, India imported just under 103 billion dollars from the GCC, Iran, and Iraq, and exported 57 billion dollars, making it one of the most important trade partners for the Gulf.

India’s footprint on the Arabian Peninsula

Lesser noticed are the growing strategic relations and the formalized development of bilateral mechanisms. New Delhi and Riyadh signed a 2014 defense cooperation agreement, which allowed for “shared use and exchange of defense-related information, military training and education, as well as cooperation in areas varying from hydrography and security to logistics.” Since then, there have been regular joint army, naval, and air force joint exercises, and a Joint Committee on Defence Cooperation has held six rounds of meetings. On April 23-24, the Indian Army and Royal Saudi Land Forces held the first round of Army-to-Army Staff Talks to discuss strengthening defence ties.

Oman has even denser security ties to India, signing a military protocol agreement in 1972 and a Memorandum of Understanding on defence cooperation in 2005. During a 2018 visit to Muscat, Modi signed an access agreement for the Indian Navy to use Duqm port for logistics, support, and maintenance.

The UAE is also ramping up defense and security relations with India. During an official visit to India last month, Minister of Defence Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum built upon existing security-related mechanisms to formalize cooperation between their coast guards and defence industries. The readout from their meeting stated that “the two sides agreed that defence cooperation should be scaled up to match the progress in trade and business.”

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

This is part of what is really India’s most highly developed Middle East relationship. With dramatic effects, it signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with the UAE in 2022. Bilateral trade in goods was 43.3 billion dollars in 2020 and is projected to surpass one hundred billion dollars this year. The Emirates see India as an important feature of their drive to diversify international partnerships and their domestic economy. Cooperation with India supports tech, skilled, and unskilled manpower, food, and medicine.

Importantly, cooperation comes without the same kinds of geopolitical complications inherent in working with China. According to an observer I recently spoke with, the only impediment to deeper India-UAE ties is the institutional capacity to keep pace with the demand for implementing and overseeing the wide range of projects that both sides want to pursue—the two governments need to develop more personnel to steer the bilateral relationship.

This is to say that India is present in the Gulf with a depth and breadth that is not always realized from outside the region. India is becoming more confident in its role as a global actor with interests and influence beyond South Asia, and regional perceptions are shifting, with Gulf countries looking at New Delhi as a consequential partner on a growing set of issues.

The IMEC factor

The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is perhaps the most interesting manifestation of this burgeoning regional partnership.

Announced during the G20 summit in September 2023, IMEC is a proposed set of projects that would link India, the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, and Europe. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was defined early as a set of corridors, so naturally, many see IMEC as a response to the BRI. It does share the underlying logic of connecting markets and supply chains, but has a narrower focus. Fairly or unfairly, BRI quickly became a buzzword for nearly everything in Chinese foreign policy. IMEC, on the other hand, looks to build upon mostly existing physical infrastructure to develop three “connectivity verticals”: transport, digital, and energy. The Arabian Peninsula is a central node in this, linking the Arabian Sea via rail networks to Israel’s Haifa Port on the Mediterranean, ultimately reaching the European market.

Within the GCC, this is a very attractive idea that aligns with country-specific “Vision” development plans. One of the most alluring futures that Gulf leaders plan for is a post-hydrocarbon economic model where new industries, fueled by foreign direct investment and partnerships with leading global technology companies, create jobs and political stability. IMEC is seen as an ambitious set of projects that can contribute to this.

While IMEC has strong support from India and most Gulf governments, progress on some elements of the corridor could face challenges in the immediate term, given tensions in the Middle East, particularly transport links between Saudi Arabia and Israel. When IMEC was unveiled, the idea of Saudi Arabia connecting to Haifa via Jordan was increasingly plausible. After nineteen months of brutal war in Gaza, the political costs have risen significantly for Riyadh. Government and business leaders see tremendous potential in IMEC connectivity, but are intensely aware that public perceptions of Israel have hardened throughout the war. Still, other transport, digital, and energy elements of IMEC are viable in the current environment and continue to enjoy strong support from Indian, Gulf, and European partners. Beyond IMEC, we can expect to see more projects that address bilateral concerns, like energy and food security or tech cooperation, as Gulf countries find ways to increase engagement with India.

Opportunities for the United States

With GCC-US relations at a high point following President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi, Qatar, and the UAE, growing momentum in GCC-India relations is in Washington’s interests as well. An Indo-Pacific partner with a deep presence in the Gulf makes a more competitive environment for China, while supporting GCC efforts to build more dynamic and sustainable economies.

With overlapping interests in energy security, maritime stability, and economic diversification, the US, India, and GCC should consider institutionalizing cooperation, such as a multilateral platform to enhance policy coordination, increase trust, and create a channel for project planning and strategic alignment.

Jonathan Fulton is a nonresident senior fellow for Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and an associate professor of political science at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi.

The post India-Gulf relations are muted—but mobilizing appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Beyond the gridlock: The case for Tunisia-Israel normalization

Alissa Pavia and Maayan Dagan — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:28:44 +0000

Tunisian President Kais Saied has made no secret of his staunch opposition to the landmark Abraham Accords and Israel’s normalizing ties with its Muslim-majority neighbors. At times, he has even veered into outwardly anti-Semitic remarks to address his disdain for the Jewish State.

Yet despite Saied’s apparent opposition to joining the Abraham Accords, his decision in November 2023 to halt the Tunisian parliament’s controversial bill criminalizing normalizing ties with Israel provided a glimpse into the president’s cost-benefit analysis over measures that could alienate the West completely. It signaled an opening, even if a very narrow one, that the possibility of Tunisian—Israel rapprochement might not be as far-fetched as experts predict, and that even a rogue actor like Saied sees the benefits in joining a Westernized coalition during times of war. Yet in the long run, especially after the war in Gaza, Tunisia’s historical openness to the West might present an opportunity to advance normalization between the two countries.

Stubborn challenges: Israel and Tunisia’s rocky relations

Israel and Tunisia do not currently maintain any kind of formal relations, but this has not always been the case.

Beginning in the 1950s, under former Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba, limited ties developed between the two countries. These included informal connections and meetings between politicians from both sides, initiated by diplomats from each country. The relationship served mutual interests—Israel sought recognition from an Arab state, while Tunisia aimed to secure support for its development, particularly in sectors such as agriculture and tourism. Consequently, in the nineties, Tunisia and Israel established low-level diplomatic relations (culminating in the opening of “interest sections” in each other’s countries, serving as de facto embassies), making the relations between the countries formal.

However, the Palestinian issue has long been a central element of Tunisia’s foreign policy, causing attrition between Israeli and Tunisian diplomatic relations. Tunis has long expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people and their struggle for self-determination and has historically defended the two-state solution. More importantly, Tunisia hosted the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) headquarters from 1982 to 1993 after Yasser Arafat was forced to flee Beirut, Lebanon, then under siege by the Israelis during the first Israel-Lebanon War. Tunis hosted the PLO headquarters until the Oslo Accords, when it relocated to Gaza and the West Bank.

This period helped cement closeness between Tunisians to the Palestinian cause, a sentiment further solidified by Israel’s deadly aerial attack on Hammam Chot on the PLO headquarters in 1985, killing a number of civilians and causing further resentment among Tunisians. Tunisians never forgave Israel for what they perceived to be an illegal incursion on their territory.

In 2000, with the outbreak of the Second Intifada in Israel and Palestine, relations between Israel and Tunisia entered a period of further crisis, leading to the suspension of official ties. While the relationship had deteriorated significantly already, the outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians rendered diplomatic efforts virtually impossible.

A continuation of the deteriorating relations underpinned the decades that followed. During Tunisia’s Jasmine revolution, Israel remained on the fence about improving ties with the new political forces, fearing the rise of an anti-Israel posture. Meanwhile, the Tunisians passed a new Constitution in 2014, underscoring its commitment to the Palestinian cause, and open letters signed by academics and researchers calling for criminalizing ties with Israel circulated among political forces.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Under Saied’s current rule, these tensions have escalated significantly, including when he rejected Israel’s 1948 borders and called for the “full liberation of Palestine,” while avoiding any overt condemnation of Hamas after its October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. On some occasions, Saied adopted an overtly antisemitic posture, accusing “the Zionists” of plotting the deadly 2023 floods in Libya that killed some four thousand people, a trope linked to the long-held antisemitic prejudice that Jews somehow control the world. His remarks sparked outrage across Israeli media.

Tunisia’s foreign policy has recently shifted markedly into a more anti-Western stance, cozying up to Iran in the process.

In May 2024, Saied visited Tehran to pay respects to the late President Ebrahim Raisi, marking the first-ever visit of a Tunisian president to Iran. That same month, rumors swirled in Italian and French news outlets of unusual air movements by Russian aircraft in the coastal city of Djerba, raising eyebrows at a potential Tunisia-Russian alignment. In August of the same year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited Tunis for the second time in over a year, pledging to help the country grapple with its wheat drought.

Why would Tunisia choose to normalize ties with Israel?

But there is even historical precedent to disrupt this trend.

Historically, Tunisia has tended to align more with the West than with the broader Arab world. However, its geographic location has made it essential to maintain strong relations with neighboring countries, particularly Algeria and Libya. While Tunisia has strategic interests in its ties with Algeria, especially in the areas of energy, trade, and finance, former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali sought to moderate the country’s financial connections to Arab countries and aimed to avoid the kind of reliance on crude oil revenues seen in other Arab states in the region.

Beyond the more apparent economic and trade incentives for Tunisia to normalize relations with Israel, Tunis could also gain from reigniting this closer alignment with the West, particularly as Iran and Russia, with whom it has recently signaled an openness to closer ties, face mounting setbacks that may force them to turn inward. Both Moscow and Tehran have faced major setbacks on the international stage. The former is dealing with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and an exorbitant number of human losses, and the latter is temporarily retreating after receiving a significant blow from Israel during the ongoing regional war between Israel and Iranian proxies. Tunisia is far from being a strategic priority for either power, and these setbacks should worry Tunisia, which might be left on its own to deal with an increasing migration threat from sub-Saharan Africa and an impending economic crisis.

Another factor that might lead Tunisia to normalize ties with Israel is the potential for hedging between regional powers. Tunisia is particularly susceptible to external influences from countries with greater international stature, particularly when looking at its ongoing relationship with Algeria. Algeria, for its part, has steadily been courting Tunisia by supporting Tunis economically and politically, including a 2022 grant worth 200 million dollars from President Abdelmadjid Tebboune to help with the country’s struggling economy, and offering leniency and cheaper prices on electricity and gas from the Transmed pipeline. Tunisia, grappling with high public debt and stagnant growth, and with the economy desperately reeling since the Covid-19 pandemic, has had little choice other than to accept Algeria’s offerings. Algeria’s rationale for influencing Tunisia stems from a need to counter perceived external Western interference—exacerbated by the signing of the Abraham Accords between its regional rival Morocco and Israel—which has heightened its sense of isolation and vulnerability.

Normalizing ties with Israel could allow Tunisia to hedge between regional powers to avoid full alignment with Algeria and maximize its personal gains. It would reduce Tunis’ risk of overdependence on Algeria, and limit the risk of collateral damage should the relationship sour and challenges emerge for Algeria itself.

Israel’s interest

Normalization between Israel and Tunisia could offer Israel several potential advantages. These include contributing to regional stability and peace, expanding international recognition and support, and possibly encouraging other countries to engage more openly with Israel. Additionally, normalization could pave the way for stronger ties in trade, tourism, and investments, especially in the field of agriculture and irrigation. It would also promote Israeli legitimacy in the region, reducing international efforts to isolate it, increasing its international standing, and opening new business opportunities in Arab markets.

From a strategic perspective, improved relations with Tunisia might also help limit Tunisia’s cooperation with countries hostile to Israel, such as Algeria, Libya, and Iran. It could even reduce the potential for renewed activity by terrorist groups operating in or from the region.

That said, many of these benefits are not unique to Tunisia—they reflect the broader advantages Israel could gain from normalizing relations with any additional Arab country.

Threats and pathways to improvement

On the other hand, normalizing with Israel poses a severe threat to Tunisia, which Saied may not be apt to overlook. Firstly, it will inevitably fracture its relationship with Algeria, alienating Tunis’ primary economic backer. Algeria has had no qualms in stressing its disdain for the Abraham Accords, recently reiterating its historic backing of a full Palestinian state, the support of which is enshrined in its constitution. Algeria would certainly take it personally and would do everything in its power to retaliate, including rescinding its economic partnership, nullifying diplomatic ties, and reinstating tighter controls on late payments.

Secondly, Saied will face severe internal backlash. Tunisians have been at the forefront of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the likes of which the country has not witnessed since the 2011 revolution. In a time when Saied is tightening control over the country, he still understands the importance of maintaining public support, and normalizing ties with Israel may pit the population against him, lessening his power and legitimacy.

While Israel perceives normalization with Tunisia as naturally beneficial, the same cannot be said in reverse, and normalization between the two does not seem feasible as long as the war in Gaza continues.

If the West wished to see normalization between these two countries prevail, it would have to provide Tunis with significant concessions. These could take the form of economic support through International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans with fewer austerity measures, or simple economic bailout packages with few strings attached.

However, such a decision carries significant risks, namely the potential erosion of the IMF’s credibility and legitimacy on the international stage. Additionally, the West, particularly the United States, can seek to leverage its ongoing military partnership with Tunisia to retain strategic influence. This could involve conditioning Tunisian aid to agreements such as the obligation to maintain secrecy over military knowledge and capabilities, especially when dealing with enemies such as Iran. This could restrict Tunisia’s movement while placing greater value on Washington’s ongoing support.

Normalization between Arab countries and Israel is still a top foreign policy agenda for US President Donald Trump’s administration. While Israel’s war rages on in Gaza, Trump has made no secret of his wish to see Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords, a feat which will undoubtedly help him reach his objective of becoming the peacemaker of the century.

While the potential for these two countries to normalize may seem farfetched, there are many strategic benefits for both that go beyond what meets the eye. Analysts may do well to keep an eye out for potential signs of rapprochement, as even small shifts may signal deeper political changes in the region.

Alissa Pavia is the Associate Director of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Program.

Maayan Dagan is a visiting research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

The post Beyond the gridlock: The case for Tunisia-Israel normalization appeared first on Atlantic Council.

For NATO in 2027, European leadership will be key to deterrence against Russia

Scott Lee, Andrew Michta, Peter Jones, and Lisa Bembenick — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 17:00:00 +0000

DOWNLOAD PDF

Key takeaways

If Russia were to move rapidly against the Baltic states, NATO could not defend its territory effectively without the United States.
European allies need to rearm quickly, but a push for full “strategic autonomy” from the United States risks destabilizing the continent and the Alliance.
The United States and NATO need to make smarter, faster decisions about who buys what and how the hardware, software, and data operate together. A Force Mix Analysis can point out the choices needed so that by 2027 European NATO states can independently defend their northeastern border.

NATO faces a growing threat from a resurgent Russia capable of hybrid and kinetic aggression across the Northeast Corridor—from Finland, the Baltic region, and Poland to the Black Sea. Currently, NATO’s defense posture relies heavily on US military support for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), strategic lift, command and control (C2), and the extended deterrence provided by the US nuclear umbrella. With the United States increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific region and committed to burden sharing, and with growing calls for European strategic autonomy, NATO must be able to deter and respond to threats as a unified entity—one not effectively dependent on US warfighting capability and capacity. Regardless of spending levels, NATO must shift from a national-centric approach to an Alliance-wide mindset. This requires a shared engineering and analytics methodology to optimize defense resource allocations with a focus on speed, precision, and collaboration.

To assess the transatlantic geostrategic environment and explore strategic options available to NATO, MITRE and the Atlantic Council partnered to conduct a NATO Force Mix Analysis (NFMA). The findings of this analysis call for accelerated capability development, institutional reform, and operational integration under a forward-leaning, data-driven, mission-engineering framework. This framework would enable NATO to make data-informed decisions to:

Adaptively evolve concepts, operational decision making, and assignment of authorities toward more effective strategic outcomes.
Optimize funding investments and deliver unified capabilities that produce the best mission effects required for operational success.
Effectively leverage technology to achieve mass.

By 2027, NATO must strengthen the Baltic Defense Line. Timely action is essential to ensure credible deterrence, reassure frontline allies, and deny Russia any opportunity to test NATO’s resolve or readiness in a high-threat environment. To achieve this, the following actions are essential:

Prepare a warfighting burden-sharing roadmap.
Establish a unified NATO multidomain warfare doctrine.
Invest in multidomain C2 and ISR infrastructure.
Establish a NATO multidomain open system architecture.
Accelerate forward posture of heavy forces and integrated air and missile defense.
Enhance military mobility and industrial coordination.
Establish additional joint ISR fusion centers.
Develop a pan-European logistics control network.
Form multidomain operations (MDO) and cyber/influence task forces.

Together, these initiatives offer a blueprint for a more self-reliant, capable, and unified NATO in 2027—ready to meet emerging threats head-on.

Introduction

NATO’s deterrence posture in the Baltic states is undermined by an overreliance on US military capabilities. In a crisis where the United States were focused elsewhere, European NATO nations may therefore be unable to mobilize a timely, effective response. This overreliance creates both strategic and operational vulnerabilities that can be exploited by Russia to challenge the Alliance’s credibility and threaten national sovereignty.

NATO’s ability to deter or respond rapidly to Russian aggression is limited by:

A lack of massed, ready combat forces in the theater.
Insufficient integrated air and missile defense.
Slow logistics and reinforcement timelines.
A lack of organic strategic mobility with a reliance on US air and sealift.
A reliance on US enablers for theater integrated C2, ISR, and mission networks.

Without the United States, NATO remains superior in numbers and technology on paper but lacks the operational integration, logistics, and joint force capabilities to rapidly match Russian mass and tempo near its borders. NATO must develop a force structure and a mix of capabilities that allow for the execution of regional defense plans with an emphasis on burden sharing. This modernization strategy must be objective, threat-based, and resource-informed.

The strategic context: A geopolitical landscape shaped by the orders forming around the US and China

The next few years will be pivotal for Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community, as shifting US geostrategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific, persistent Russian threats, the rise of authoritarian powers, and a rapidly changing global order redefine the political landscape.

Alongside changing US and European Union (EU) defense priorities, the outcome of the war in Ukraine will be a critical factor in shaping NATO’s strategies. As the devolution of the post–Cold War liberal international order accelerates, with increasingly fluid relations between states, a new geopolitical landscape looms over the horizon, shaped by the bounded orders that the principal great powers, the United States and China, are forming around them. To address the challenges facing the United States in key theaters, adaptability and robust multidomain capabilities will be paramount in ensuring both regional stability and the protection of democratic values. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the Euro-Atlantic theater, as resource requirements in the Indo-Pacific region will continue to divert US resources there, making technology a key multiplier for the US European Command (EUCOM) and NATO.

Russia’s aggressive regional actions show no sign of slowing, with Moscow targeting Europe through both direct and indirect methods. As General Christopher Cavoli, EUCOM commander and the supreme allied commander Europe, recently testified before the US Senate, Russia has been and will likely remain a chronic threat to NATO. From military threats to hybrid warfare tactics—such as cyber-attacks, information campaigns, and economic pressure—Russia is further consolidating its influence in countries like Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. As it rebuilds its military capabilities and doubles down on nuclear reliance, Russia is strengthening its ties with authoritarian regimes, creating an emerging “axis of dictatorships” alongside China, Iran, and North Korea.

The growing Russia–China partnership poses a unique challenge to NATO, particularly as China expands its influence globally and engages in economic warfare. That country also benefits from its de facto alliance with Russia by gaining access to some of Russia’s modernized military technology, while China, in turn, provides a vital economic lifeline to Russia and a “moral legitimacy” for Russia’s actions in Europe, which align with China’s designs on Taiwan. This fusion of economic and military power, coupled with assertive moves in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, is reshaping global dynamics and testing NATO’s reach and resilience. The West faces a rapidly evolving challenge, requiring swift, strategic responses to counter the growing authoritarian alliance that threatens global stability.

As Europe confronts an increasingly precarious security environment and potential friction in relations with the United States, the European Union appears to be doubling down on its efforts to achieve strategic autonomy. In March 2025, the EU unveiled a bold white paper outlining plans to significantly boost defense spending, foster collaborative defense projects, and shift toward purchasing European-made arms. This move is designed to close critical capability gaps in missile defense, drones, and cyber warfare, while also pooling resources to create a more unified defense infrastructure. The proposal even includes borrowing up to €150 billion for defense loans, aiming to reduce fragmentation in Europe’s defense industry and enhance the continent’s self-reliance. At the same time, recent elections in Germany have introduced new dynamics into that country’s defense policy. The newly elected leadership is reevaluating its defense priorities, a shift that could have significant implications for Germany’s role within NATO and its contributions to collective defense. Friedrich Merz, the incoming chancellor, has successfully lobbied the Bundestag to lift the legal deficit spending restrictions on defense, while repeatedly underscoring that Europe must chart an independent course. How Germany navigates this shift will be crucial in shaping Europe’s defense future and the tenor of transatlantic relations.

NATO, meanwhile, remains focused on deterrence and collective regional defense. With an emphasis on burden sharing and joint procurement of critical systems, the Alliance is rapidly expanding its combat-ready, forward-deployed forces in Poland and the Baltics, underpinned by a robust training and sustainment hub in Germany. The outcome of an ongoing US defense-posture review may drive additional modernization and deployment efforts, but this “fight tonight” readiness reflects NATO’s shared vow to defend European borders and ensure security. As NATO defense ministers have pointed out, these efforts demonstrate Europe’s increasing commitment to sharing the transatlantic defense load.

However, to truly succeed in its mission, NATO’s efforts must be underpinned by a data-driven approach. Modernization planning for its MDO strategy must integrate cutting-edge data analytics to ensure that defense initiatives are not only effective but responsive to the emerging threats of today and tomorrow. This strategy must be backed by a comprehensive Alliance-wide effort and a coordinated whole-of-government response to address NATO’s most pressing security challenges with agility and precision.

Europe stands at a critical juncture. There is potential tension inherent in Europe’s evolving commitment to strategic autonomy and strengthening NATO’s collective defense, as both ultimately rest on the ability to generate relevant, usable integrated capabilities. This demands a warfighting mindset, and an understanding of the acquisition, integration, and training required to be successful.

As Europe grapples with the challenges of an increasingly unpredictable world, the key question for NATO and collective defense will be what capabilities Europe can contribute to offer credible options to NATO. Success will hinge on how swiftly and effectively these efforts are coordinated and implemented, as they will significantly shape political decisions in the years ahead.

The war in Ukraine

Russia’s war on Ukraine has redrawn the European security map. It is a system-transforming conflict with asymmetric technology offsets, notably the emergence of drones and drone warfare. Regardless of the outcome, preexisting assumptions about transatlantic security and power distribution in Europe no longer hold. It is a litmus test for both NATO’s unity and the EU’s ability to sustain its support for Ukraine—especially as US military priorities shift toward Asia.

The coming months will be pivotal in determining how both institutions adapt to these pressures. NATO must reconcile the diverging priorities among its members, while the EU needs to strengthen its defense industrial base (DIB) to supply Ukraine, advance its own rearmament, and contribute to regional stability. As the crisis unfolds, the world will be watching how NATO and the EU respond—and whether they can navigate their internal divisions to confront the broader challenges ahead. Most of all, as the Trump administration endeavors to broker a ceasefire deal between Russia and Ukraine, the outcome of that process will likely be a defining factor in how the conflict unfolds in the coming months.

NATO’s cohesion is being put to the test, as the Trump administration’s pressure on allies to rearm generates a positive but uneven response. While some member states have stepped up defense spending, others remain hesitant, citing economic pressures and varying threat perceptions. The countries in the Baltic area and the Northeast Corridor have significantly increased their defense spending, while countries farther away from NATO’s eastern frontier have been less forthcoming. This divergence risks weakening unity and effectiveness. NATO must address internal tensions to remain a credible force.

The EU’s push to rearm is also being challenged. Economic strains, particularly in major European economies, threaten the EU’s ability to sustain a unified defense approach. The EU’s ambition to reduce dependency on the United States and bolster its defense capabilities is at risk unless it can harmonize the defense priorities of its member states. It also fails to address the most fundamental question of which country—absent a US nuclear umbrella—would provide a nuclear deterrent and in what fashion. This highlights the critical need for the EU to present a cohesive yet realistic program to address a dynamic regional and global security environment. While NATO remains the cornerstone of collective defense and deterrence in Europe, the EU can and must play a complementary role by strengthening defense industrial capacity, improving military mobility, and reinforcing political cohesion across the continent. The EU must use the financial and regulatory levers at its disposal to enable member states to meet their key capability requirements, as defined by NATO planning.

With the Ukraine conflict exposing vulnerabilities, NATO’s reinforced presence in the Baltic area and Poland has never been more essential. These regions are key to deterring further aggression and ensuring that European borders remain secure. At the same time, the war’s impact on energy security and global supply chains has pushed Europe to rethink its transition to green energy. No longer willing to rely on Russian energy, European nations are diversifying their sources and debating the future of clean energy initiatives. Some EU members have mooted the idea of reopening the Nord Stream pipelines and at least partially normalizing economic relations with Russia once a ceasefire in Ukraine has been put in place. But Europe’s challenges go beyond energy: NATO and the EU face the rise of hybrid warfare, autonomous systems and drone warfare, cyber threats, and false information campaigns—all of which undermine stability and test the Alliance’s adaptability.

Defense spending dilemmas, shrinking and fragmented defense industries

As global security challenges intensify, both US and European DIBs are grappling with serious capacity and scalability issues. The US DIB, now only 30 percent of its Cold War size, is strained by contractor consolidation and growing supply-chain vulnerabilities. Europe’s defense sector remains fragmented, hampered by disconnected industrial policies that stifle cross-border collaboration and scalability, with lead times from orders to delivery still unacceptably long.

To maintain strategic readiness and counter growing threats, both the United States and Europe must urgently come up with bold solutions:

Modular, scalable production facilities and additive manufacturing must be prioritized to rapidly adapt to shifting demands.
A significant boost in munition manufacturing capacity is needed to sustain large-scale conflict operations.
Cybersecurity enhancements across industrial and critical infrastructure networks are paramount to safeguard against emerging digital threats.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and autonomous systems will empower defense forces to deliver rapid effects with minimal manpower.
Improved NATO coordination and interoperability are essential to ensure defense production is optimized, maximizing collective industrial capacity.

In President Donald Trump’s second term, the United States faces a critical defense spending dilemma exacerbated by fiscal constraints, military recruitment challenges, and the demands of potential simultaneous conflicts in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. These factors present significant risks to NATO, transatlantic relations, and global security. To address these challenges, NATO must move from the perennial talk about burden sharing to burden shifting and focus on transferring conventional combat capabilities from the United States to Europe. This shift will require deeper military integration and force modernization to maintain NATO’s effectiveness against growing threats from Russia and China. The United States must capitalize on its technological advantages while strengthening cooperation with European and Indo-Pacific allies. This approach will ensure the United States can balance its global commitments and continue to take the lead in maintaining international security. As a result, NATO’s collective defense efforts will remain robust amid evolving geopolitical pressures. In a nutshell, technology must be a critical force multiplier for the Alliance, helping to offset at least some of Russia’s advantage in mass.

Since its founding, NATO has depended on US leadership and military power. With the United States less able to provide the same level of conventional forces and infrastructure in Europe as it did during the Cold War and the 2000s, key NATO members—particularly Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—will have to significantly ramp up defense spending and military readiness. The key challenge will be to ensure that the EU doesn’t veer into a full-blown “strategic autonomy” project, as that would inevitably drain real resources from NATO. Instead, efforts at deeper European defense industrial integration should allow Europe to take greater responsibility for its security by resourcing core conventional deterrence capabilities within NATO, while still benefiting from US strategic support. In this new landscape, NATO’s collective defense would benefit, as regional defense plans would be backed by real, exercised capabilities—ensuring NATO is once again up to the task. Should the opposite happen—i.e., if Germany decides to push the EU to chart an independent course from the United States—the ensuing stresses in transatlantic relations would further fracture European politics and likely make the continent more vulnerable to Russian blackmail or all-out aggression down the line.

European NATO nations have pledged to increase defense spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product, and many exceed that benchmark. Yet current European force posture in the Baltic states and elsewhere in the Northeast Corridor is insufficient to deter or respond to a rapid Russian incursion without significant external reinforcement. NATO needs to:

Approach European rearmament in a way that builds credible, multidomain, combat-ready formations while keeping the United States engaged.
Conduct a comprehensive review of capabilities and gaps (where the United States is engaged) to inform future force design and new operational concepts and doctrine to underpin collective defense.
Develop a capability roadmap that enables burden sharing across the Alliance.

The view within NATO: What the Alliance needs by 2027

In response to Russia’s expanding capabilities, NATO has embraced a deterrence-by-denial posture, focusing on MDO to counteract aggression. This includes deploying forward forces, pre-positioning critical equipment, and developing operational concepts that prioritize holding the line and achieving rapid victory. Success will depend on massed effects and orchestrated battlefield efforts, with the unique strengths of each NATO member synchronized to support one another.

To counter emerging threats, NATO must urgently strengthen its logistical networks and mobility, ensuring rapid reinforcement of its eastern borders. Investment in key north-south road and rail corridors to enhance mobility along the eastern flank—from Scandinavia to the Baltic and Black seas—is essential for seamless troop and resource movement. Equally critical are interoperable C2 systems, designed with a data-centric, on-demand capability approach. These systems must integrate multidomain forces across nations, services, and echelons to maintain cohesion and operational effectiveness. To meet these challenges, NATO must modernize its infrastructure and adopt a wartime mindset, focusing on resilience, readiness, and strategic investments in critical capabilities. The Alliance must establish the necessary authorities to institutionally act with specific member states working in tandem with the EU to invest in critical infrastructure upgrades that support NATO operational requirements.

Russia’s military modernization efforts include enhancing unmanned systems for ISR and attack operations, networked fires, advanced weapons like hypersonic missiles, and robust cyber capabilities. Coupled with hybrid tactics such as false information campaigns, cyber-attacks, and sabotage, Russia poses an increasingly complex threat—especially with its use of “gray zone” strategies designed to blur the lines between conventional and irregular warfare. To counter these threats, NATO must be able to rapidly mobilize and deploy forces, emphasizing massed effects and MDO to blunt Russia’s initial momentum. The first seventy-two hours are critical, as Russia would aim to quickly seize territory and key infrastructure. Denying Russia these early operational gains could provide a critical off-ramp to avoid a protracted conflict. The following operational needs are key to NATO’s success:

Track and target key Russian units by using advanced C2 and ISR capabilities, holding them at risk before conflict escalates.
Surge reinforcements to hot spots through enhanced rapid deployment mechanisms as tensions rise.
Deploy highly lethal forces, supported by unmanned systems, to halt Russian advances at the point of contact, using well-coordinated defensive positions and preplaced forces.
Counterattack through multidomain orchestration and converged effects, targeting Russian C2 and employing anti-armor and long-range precision fires systems to disrupt rapid advances.
Build integrated, trained formations capable of maneuvering and attacking Russian forces, logistics, and C2 systems to reclaim territory and reestablish international boundaries.

NATO must continue to strengthen its forward combat-ready presence with balanced rotational and permanently stationed forces, while investing in fires and defensive capabilities that provide a reinforcement window from the United States and other NATO nations. Critical to ensuring deterrence by denial is the top-down commitment from member states to operationalize multidomain C2, NATO’s unified networking and digital infrastructure.

Building an effective NATO force design

The Alliance must ensure that procured systems are the right systems based on regional plans, capability targets, and desired mission effects and work together seamlessly to create an integrated and interoperable multidomain force. To that end, NATO must:

Deploy multinational MDO groups with shared ISR, C2, and kinetic/nonkinetic fires to overwhelm Russian forces and halt their advance.
Expand integrated air and missile defense systems to counter advanced threats, including drones.
Enhance rapid deployment and mobility through improved multimodal transport corridors and strategic airlift capabilities.
Implement layered force protection and counter-mobility measures along NATO’s borders, buying time for multidomain forces to strike Russian formations deep inside their territory.
Pre-position critical supplies (ammunition, fuel, heavy equipment) along the eastern flank.
Invest in pooled and shared resources across member states, particularly in high-tech areas like satellite communications, drones, AI, and surveillance platforms.
Invest in integrated training and experimentation to create strategic deterrence.

Establishing a NATO multidomain operations strategy

NATO’s ability to conduct effective MDO has never been more crucial. To counter Russia’s expanding military capabilities, NATO must integrate and leverage all domains—land, air, sea, cyber, and space—into a unified, cohesive strategy. MDO allow NATO to rapidly respond, disrupt enemy operations, and maintain strategic advantage. By improving interoperability, developing common standards, and building a seamless digital ecosystem, NATO can enhance its operational effectiveness and ensure rapid, coordinated action across all member nations. To counter Russia’s aggression and to reinforce its role as the cornerstone of global security, NATO must put forward an MDO strategy focused on a range of critical capabilities:

A next-generation multidomain C2 system: This system must integrate all operational domains—land, sea, air, space, and cyber—into a single, unified interface for commanders. It should be fully interoperable across NATO member states and their national C2 architectures, enabling seamless cross-domain integration and battlefield orchestration, regardless of time, geography, or mission requirements.
Integrated multidomain C2 operations centers: Within NATO’s multinational divisions, corps, and joint force commands, these centers can help to integrate situational awareness of national forces. Progress must continue to enable them to be networked to orchestrate operations across all domains, ensuring quick, coordinated action.
Integrated ISR fusion centers: These centers must break down information-sharing barriers and integrate intelligence from multiple domains to provide real-time, actionable insights that are essential for swift decision making that enables expanded maneuver and cross-domain fires.
AI (algorithmic warfare): AI will be pivotal in predictive analytics, persistent targeting, effects planning, and operational decision support. These algorithms can enhance decision making by providing commanders with insights on potential outcomes and courses of action.
Cyber-resilient digital architectures: The zero-trust model secures critical systems and data by minimizing attack surfaces, enforcing least-privilege access, and enabling resilient, segmented networks. NATO’s digital infrastructure must employ this cybersecurity model to be protected from adversarial attacks that could disrupt or manipulate critical data, AI algorithms, and operational capabilities, ensuring system integrity and operational continuity.
Autonomous systems: Leveraging low cost, expendable systems for reconnaissance, targeting, maneuver, lethal and nonlethal fires, and logistical support will significantly increase operational efficiency and reduce risks to personnel in contested environments.
Unified networking and digital infrastructure: A data-centric approach will enable plug-and-play software development tailored to mission needs, ensuring NATO’s digital systems remain agile and responsive to emerging threats.

NATO must prioritize systems thinking, integration, and data interoperability within a unified, multidomain digital architecture. This approach is vital to ensuring that collective defense and deterrence capabilities are effective and adaptable to the complexities of modern warfare. These measures can significantly enhance NATO’s deterrence posture by leveraging technology to achieve mass and counter emerging threats. Success hinges on developing common standards, fostering interoperability across national systems, and creating a robust digital ecosystem that facilitates seamless data flow and decision making.

Envisioning NATO’s future through mission engineering

The United States and NATO must make smarter, faster decisions about what capabilities to acquire and how to integrate them within an multidomain force design. Every acquisition and force-development decision should be driven by a clear understanding of why it’s needed, when it’s needed, where it will be deployed, and what mission outcomes are expected. Only by focusing on these key factors can NATO build the warfighting capability and capacity needed for future success within the urgent timelines required.

NATO force modernization is not just about increasing defense spending—it is about spending smarter and optimizing the resources in hand more effectively. Regardless of spending levels, NATO must shift from a national-centric approach to an Alliance-wide mindset. This requires a shared engineering and analytics methodology to optimize defense resource allocations with a focus on speed, precision, and collaboration.

By investing in forward-deployed forces, integrated air and missile defense, multidomain warfare enabled by integrated C2 and ISR, autonomous systems, and resilient logistics, European NATO nations can strengthen deterrence and response capabilities—without relying on immediate US military intervention.

NATO, especially NATO European nations, must rapidly transform warfighting concepts and capabilities to counter a resurgent Russian threat by 2027. This demands agile decision making and investment in technological innovation, seamless integration, and interoperability—all essential to generate combat mass and achieve dominance in multidomain warfare.

MITRE’s data-driven, systems-thinking approach coupled with the Atlantic Council’s Euro-Atlantic strategic knowledge revolutionizes multidomain force design by combining scenario-based mission engineering and operational analysis. Known as the NATO Force Mix Analysis, this powerful methodology assesses and optimizes military force structures, C2, ISR, and fires architectures, all aligned with strategic capability options in a threat-driven context to help inform coordinated, future-ready investment strategies across the Alliance.

If broadly adopted, the NFMA can help NATO—especially European members—accelerate capability development, respond more effectively to current and emerging threats, and validate new technologies through continuous, real-world analysis and experimentation. This, in turn, would enable faster deployment of critical systems and smarter operational decisions. Specifically, the NFMA could support NATO in the following ways:

Inform early deployment of experimental platforms and operational concepts. Prototypes will be evaluated in both live exercises and fielded operational environments to test performance, uncover capability gaps, and refine tactics. This would enable NATO to assess the real-world effectiveness of emerging technologies and operational concepts before full-scale integration.
Provide the foundation for continuous testing and evaluation of tactics, techniques, and procedures in varied operational scenarios. Through persistent experimentation, NATO will remain adaptable, learning and evolving in response to new threats and opportunities for innovation.
Enable rapid development and procurement of new capabilities to ensure NATO can meet evolving defense needs. Employing open architectures and agile acquisition for fielding critical capabilities will reduce time to implementation and enhance operational flexibility.
Help NATO collectively identify and field the right combination of force structures, technologies, and operational strategies to strengthen its deterrence posture while maintaining agility and readiness. Through mission engineering, operational prototyping, persistent experimentation, and agile acquisition, NATO can test new capabilities and refine operational strategies to ensure sustained deterrence and rapid response in the Baltic region.

The Alliance must assess and adapt its force mix to operate in a contested, multidomain environment. The following analytic questions are critical to guiding NATO’s posture, readiness, and resilience amid evolving threats and uncertain US. force commitments.

How can NATO combat readiness and forward presence be improved?
How can NATO establish a resilient, multidomain C2 and ISR architecture and how does NATO best offset a reduction in US commitment of its capability and capacity?
- How resilient is European C3 and ISR under cyber and kinetic attack?
- What data integration and decision processes enable NATO unity and speed?
How can NATO improve persistent targeting and lethality?
- How can NATO establish a joint fires network?
- What is the role of AI and autonomous systems in targeting and lethality?
What is required for integrated air and missile defense (including counter-unmanned aircraft systems) to hold the line?
What is required for NATO to successfully execute contested logistics forward in the battlespace? Can NATO sustain thirty-plus days of combat operations without US strategic lift, theater lift, and logistics assets and expertise?

The NATO 2027 use case: Insights and priorities

Initial insights from the NFMA underscore several operational priorities critical to NATO Europe’s ability to independently deter or defeat a Russian offensive in the Baltic region by 2027, particularly in scenarios with limited or delayed US engagement. These insights highlight the importance of integrating advanced fires, mobility, survivability, and C2 capabilities into a cohesive, MDO concept.

Key findings and operational priorities include:

Countering Russian mass and tempo with integrated fires: NATO must pair long-range precision fires with close-combat drone swarms to disrupt and degrade Russian force concentration and tempo. This layered approach enhances survivability while enabling rapid effects across the depth of the battlespace.
Persistent targeting via multidomain fires and C2 networks: Success in a high-threat environment requires a persistent, integrated “kill chain” linking ISR, C2, and fires across all domains. NATO must be capable of delivering operational-level fires from standoff range to neutralize Russian anti-access/area-denial systems, command nodes, and massed maneuver forces within key mobility corridors.
Overmatch in mobility, countermobility, and survivability: NATO forces must dominate the terrain through superior mobility and countermobility operations, creating choke points and engagement zones that slow Russian advances and funnel them into preplanned kill boxes. Critical targeting priorities include Russian combat engineering units that enable cross-country movement and breaching operations, in addition to traditional C2 and logistics nodes.
Integrated, layered force protection and terrain shaping: A combination of physical border fortifications, camouflaged forward positions, and active defense systems is required to delay Russian momentum and generate tactical opportunities—creating conditions for NATO forces to strike with precision anti-armor fires, loitering munitions, and coordinated drone swarms, especially at choke points and terrain seams.

These insights reinforce the need for NATO to invest in operational prototyping, joint experimentation, and rapid fielding of advanced fires and survivability capabilities. Implementing these priorities through a data-driven, mission-engineering approach will ensure NATO Europe is postured for success in a contested, near-peer conflict environment.

Recommendations

Building on the operational insights from the NFMA, the following recommendations are aimed at enabling NATO Europe to independently deter, respond to, and potentially defeat Russian aggression in the Baltic states by 2027. These measures are designed to accelerate capability development, institutional reforms, and operational integration in line with a forward-leaning, data-informed, mission-engineering framework.

Prepare a warfighting burden-sharing roadmap: NATO must develop a capability roadmap that enables burden sharing and, where appropriate, burden transfer from the United States to Europe for critical warfighting capabilities while addressing gaps to achieve threat overmatch.
Establish a unified NATO multidomain warfare doctrine: Develop and implement a multidomain operational concept, aligning land, air, maritime, cyber, and space operations across regional defense plans and force structures.
Invest in multidomain C2 and ISR infrastructure: Build a resilient, interoperable digital architecture to support real-time C2, dynamic targeting, and cross-domain ISR sharing among allies.
Establish a NATO multidomain open system architecture: Create an open system test and experimentation architecture to drive C2 interoperability and rapid deployment based on mission and user need.
Accelerate forward posture of heavy forces and IAMD: Pre-position armored units and layered air and missile defenses in key forward areas to enable rapid combat mass and early crisis response.
Enhance military mobility and industrial coordination: Improve cross-border military transit and align defense industrial base efforts for surge production of critical systems and munitions.
Establish additional joint ISR fusion centers: Set up additional ISR hubs in Germany, Poland, and Finland that build on existing Baltic centers to provide persistent battlespace awareness and theater-level targeting.
Develop a pan-European logistics control network: Create a secure, integrated logistics system to sustain operations under contested conditions, incorporating civilian and military infrastructure.
Form MDO and cyber/influence task forces: Deploy specialized units to coordinate cross-domain fires and information operations, supported by integration cells at corps and division levels.
Conduct no-notice Article 5 rehearsal war games (without US surge forces): Routinely execute unscripted, short-notice multinational exercises to test NATO’s ability to respond to aggression under Article 5. Use outcomes to inform force posture and capability investments.
Build a NATO integrated training and validation program: The joint training architecture, in coordination with Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, will validate unit readiness and interoperability in line with the 2027 vision. This program should emphasize realistic, threat-informed scenarios and integration of new technologies and concepts.

Conclusion

To maintain NATO’s deterrence credibility and defend national sovereignty in the face of a reconstituted Russian threat, Europe must assume greater responsibility and operational capability. Achieving this NATO Europe 2027 vision requires more than policy alignment—it demands a mission-driven, technically grounded approach to force design, readiness, and modernization. In support of operationalizing this vision, the MITRE–Atlantic Council collaboration on the NATO Force Mix Analysis offers a reusable, scalable technical framework to guide strategic defense decisions through 2027 and beyond.

This framework integrates advanced digital engineering tools, mission-level modeling, and decision analytics to continuously evaluate NATO’s defense needs, mission requirements, and acquisition priorities in a dynamic threat environment. It provides a rigorous, evidence-based foundation for aligning strategy with capability development—supporting faster, smarter, and more resilient force planning across European allies.

Key enablers of the NATO 2027 vision include:

Mission-driven analysis: NFMA supports an ongoing assessment of force mix options aligned with strategic objectives, enabling nations to prioritize investments that close capability gaps and build operational mass.
Digital engineering and modeling: High-fidelity simulation and modeling environments allow planners to visualize and evaluate operational concepts, logistics, and reinforcement timelines under contested conditions—before investments are made.
Operational prototyping and experimentation: The NFMA approach enables early testing of new operational concepts and technologies through simulation, live exercises, and real-world experimentation—de-risking decisions and informing doctrine.
Agile acquisition support: Insights from the NFMA can guide iterative acquisition decisions, accelerating the deployment of high-impact capabilities such as ISR, integrated air defense, mobility assets, and interoperable C2 systems.

About the authors

Scott Lee is the chief engineer for multidomain operations and C2 at MITRE. In this role, he leads MITRE’s efforts to develop solutions that address the defense challenges and operational requirements of next-generation command and control and enabling systems in support of US and allied and partner warfighting concepts. He previously led MITRE’s Joint All-Domain C2 (JADC2) Cross-Cutting Priority.

Andrew Michta is a senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the former dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. He holds a PhD in international relations from Johns Hopkins University. His areas of expertise include international security, NATO, and European politics and security, with a special focus on Central Europe and the Baltic states.

Peter Jones retired from the Army as a brigadier general and is a contract engineer at MITRE, providing broad support to the Army portfolio especially in the area of future concept development and experimentation in support of Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and now predominately Army Future Command’s Future Concept Center. Prior to his retirement, Jones served for two years as the U.S. Army Infantry School Commandant and 56th Chief of Infantry.

Lisa Bembenick is the executive director of international security affairs for MITRE. She is responsible for MITRE’s international strategy and senior level relationships on defense issues related to the United States, Europe, and NATO, and positions MITRE to bring its technical capabilities to bear on critical security outcomes faced by NATO countries. She was previously director of strategy for MITRE’s National Security Engineering Center.

Acknowledgements

As part of their strategic partnership, the Atlantic Council and MITRE have conducted a NATO Force Mix Analysis, examining ways to harden the Alliance’s eastern flank, measure the value of multidomain operations, and deter Russian aggression. This paper is jointly produced by the Atlantic Council and MITRE.

MITRE and the Atlantic Council gratefully acknowledge Meg Adams, Greg Crawford, LeAnne Howard, Jackson Ludwig, and Matt McKaig for their valuable contributions to the publication of this paper.

The authors would also like to thank Paul O’Donnell, Lori Fermano, Phillippe Dickinson, Sheila Gagen, Bailey Galicia, and Sydney Sherry for their editorial assistance.

Explore the program

The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world.

The post For NATO in 2027, European leadership will be key to deterrence against Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Turkish-American defense and energy partnerships suit the new transatlantic landscape

Gregory Bloom — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

The week following last November’s US elections, the newly formed American Turkish Business Roundtable (ATBR) gathered in Istanbul for a press event where ATBR directors, General Jim Jones and General Tod Wolters (both retired and both former SACEURs), addressed the impact of Donald Trump’s election victory on US-Turkey relations. At that moment, bilateral ties were strengthening, primarily through defense partnerships in response to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The announcement of a joint venture between Repkon and General Dynamics, known as Repkon USA, to manufacture 155 millimeter ammunition for Ukraine underscored both the fragility of the US defense industrial base and the advantages of accelerating the partnership with Turkey and deepening its role in NATO’s supply chain.

The consensus at the Istanbul meeting was clear: The US-Turkey relationship was poised for further improvement. This expectation was based not only on the historically positive relationship between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President Trump, but also on their shared approach to foreign policy: pragmatic, transactional, and focused on strategic economic and security interests. Yet, four months later, the transatlantic security landscape has again undergone a dramatic shift.

Trump’s foreign policy signals a shift toward burden sharing among NATO allies, prompting European nations to assume greater defense responsibilities and reconsider US defense partnerships. This shift has forced European leaders to take greater responsibility for their own security needs, significantly increasing pressure on NATO members to boost defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product—a level that many European governments had previously resisted. As a result, European defense markets are undergoing a transformation. European countries, once heavily dependent on the United States for defense procurement, are now directing increased defense spending toward their domestic industries rather than US firms. This is evidenced by the decline in US defense stocks and the rise in European defense stocks in recent months.

For US defense firms, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. If American companies want to remain competitive in the European market, they might be well-served to partner with Turkish firms to access European domestic procurement programs. Turkish defense firms, already well-integrated with NATO supply chains, provide an ideal platform for US companies to keep a foothold in Europe. Turkish manufacturers like Baykar, Aselsan, and Roketsan produce cost-effective, high-quality systems that European nations increasingly need. The Repkon USA partnership is just the first step, and other joint ventures could enable US firms to leverage Turkey’s industrial base while meeting Europe’s demand for non-American suppliers.

Over the past month, European defense stocks have outperformed US defense stocks due to concerns over NATO’s future following Trump’s remarks suggesting the United States might not defend allies that do not meet spending targets. This has driven European nations to accelerate defense investments, with spending projected to rise dramatically. Countries across Europe are prioritizing domestic production to reduce reliance on US suppliers, while Turkey is expanding its defense industrial base and exploring partnerships with US firms. As a result, US defense companies are seeing declines in value amid expectations that European nations will shift procurement away from direct US purchases in favor of European suppliers.

Turkey’s role as an energy hub and regional leader is becoming more critical, serving as a key transit point for resources from Iraq, the Caspian region, and the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe. The expected reopening of the Iraq-Turkey Pipeline (ITP) and the potential expansion of Trans-Caspian energy routes further reinforce Turkey’s strategic importance. In March, Turkey reinforced its regional energy leadership as Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani to discuss resuming Kurdish oil exports and exporting Basra oil via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline. With the United States revoking Iraq’s waiver to import Iranian electricity, talks also focused on expanding Turkey’s electricity and gas supplies to Iraq. In Erbil, Bayraktar and Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani agreed to remove barriers to Kurdish oil exports through Turkey’s Ceyhan port. These efforts reflect Turkey’s strategy to deepen regional energy ties and enhance regional energy security. As US firms look to offset margin pressures at home, investment in Turkey’s energy sector will only increase, aligning with Ankara’s ambitions to diversify its energy partnerships and solidify its role as a key transit hub for Europe.

The Trump administration’s focus on reducing inflation by lowering oil prices has also had significant consequences for global energy markets. As expectations for cheaper oil rise, many US producers are hesitant to expand domestic drilling, knowing that lower prices will reduce their profit margins. Instead, US energy firms are seeking new markets abroad, with Turkey, Iraq, and Libya emerging as key investment destinations. Recent deals underscore this trend, including the Continental Resources-TPAO partnership, which will explore and develop unconventional energy resources, and the ExxonMobil-BOTAS liquified natural gas agreement, which expands gas trade between the two countries.

The US-Turkey relationship is evolving in response to shifting transatlantic dynamics in defense and energy. The withdrawal of US financial and intelligence support for Ukraine amid Trump’s ceasefire push, later restored, pushed European nations toward self-reliance, creating both risks and opportunities for American defense firms. To maintain access to European defense markets, US companies will need to adapt by forming strategic partnerships including with Turkish firms. At the same time, the changing energy landscape is driving American energy firms to invest in Turkey and the broader region, ensuring continued economic ties between the two nations. While geopolitical tensions remain, defense and energy cooperation offer a pragmatic path forward for US-Turkey relations in this new era.

Few things are simple in US-Turkish relations, and the current environment presents obstacles as well as opportunities. Tariff effects on transatlantic trade remain uncertain in the first half of 2025, including in the area of defense industrial cooperation, though for now it seems the 10 percent tariff on Turkey may end up being relatively advantageous compared to some markets. The instinct to localize and nationalize industrial production in both the United States and Turkey represents something of a headwind for larger projects. Domestic political unrest in Turkey may also create caution in Washington or hesitance among US firms out of concern over instability impacting Turkish markets or suppliers.

Yet these concerns, while real and significant, do not outweigh the glaring and growing need that prompted formation of the ATBR. Greater US-Turkey engagement is essential for maintaining US strategic influence in NATO, European defense markets, and regional energy security; that engagement also facilitates supply chain resilience and surge capacity for future military contingencies.

Congress would be wise to support deeper defense industrial cooperation, including joint production agreements, to keep US firms competitive in Europe and engaged with Turkey. Strengthening US investment in Turkey’s energy sector would bolster transatlantic energy security and reduce reliance on adversarial suppliers. Additionally, renewed high-level diplomatic and security dialogues would help counterbalance Russian and Chinese influence while ensuring long-term US economic and security interests. A stronger US-Turkey partnership is not just beneficial—it is in many ways a strategic necessity.

Gregory Bloom is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Turkey Program. He also serves as the chief operating officer of Jones Group International (JGI).

Explore other issues

The Atlantic Council in Turkey aims to promote and strengthen transatlantic engagement with the region by providing a high-level forum and pursuing programming to address the most important issues on energy, economics, security, and defense.

The post Turkish-American defense and energy partnerships suit the new transatlantic landscape appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Murray in Sky News on UK’s Strategic Defence Review

Atlantic Council — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

On June 2, Rob Murray, non-resident senior fellow at Forward Defense and the Transatlantic Security Initiative, appeared on Sky News to offer his insights on the UK’s Strategic Defence Review. Murray emphasized the importance of re-drawing financial architectures and increasing credit flow into supply chains to effectively finance the Review’s ambitious armament procurement goals.

Fellow

Rob Murray

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Defense Industry Defense Policy

The post Murray in Sky News on UK’s Strategic Defence Review appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Why the Middle Corridor matters amid a geopolitical resorting

Karel Valansi — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

Geopolitical earthquakes are redrawing trade routes across Eurasia. Russia’s war in Ukraine has awakened Central Asian countries, which have discovered their strength through cooperation to develop their economies and attain independence. Without the constant attention of Russia, this cooperation contributes to developing the Middle Corridor, a key trade route linking China to Europe via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, and the South Caucasus. It is an alternative to traditional east-west trade routes that bypasses Russia and Iran. The Middle Corridor is a regional initiative, not an external, imposed idea. It boosts regional cooperation, flexibility, economic growth, and diplomatic dialogue. While Russia and China try to maneuver according to new geopolitical developments, Iran is ignored in these initiatives.

The Middle Corridor creates a strategic role for Turkey as a central energy hub connecting Europe to additional suppliers. The European Union (EU) has recently increased its interest and investment in the corridor. However, the United States is still sitting on the sidelines even though the Middle Corridor presents a vital opportunity to counterbalance Russian and Chinese dominance in the region and limit Iran’s desire to mitigate the effects of economic sanctions. Moreover, greater connectivity means access to Central Asia’s vast deposits of rare earth elements crucial for civilian and defense products, new energy, and information technology. As corridor countries seek to reach new markets and lessen their dependence on Russia and China, Turkey, the EU, and the United States share a common interest in increasing cooperation and counterbalancing the power of Russia and China.

The rise of trade corridors

Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the European Union faced unprecedented precarity and had to reconsider its energy structure to diminish its vulnerable interdependence on Russia’s asymmetrical control over pipelines and weaponization of energy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Europe’s urge for diversification increased the need for connectivity and shifted international attention toward trade corridors. As corridor wars intensify and become the new scene for great power competition, the United States needs a more assertive policy concerning Central Asia. This is especially true as the growing cooperation between Russia, China, Iran, and, to some extent, North Korea aims to challenge Western influence by building alternative trade routes aligned with their political agenda. Washington must actively engage in infrastructure initiatives across Central Asia to counterbalance this trend.

The Middle Corridor: A strategic alternative

The Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), or the Middle Corridor, is a multimodal trade route connecting Europe and China via Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, its strategic importance has grown as it bypasses both Russia and Iran. The Middle Corridor relies primarily on existing rail and port infrastructure and requires further development and investment. Countries along its path are working to position it as an alternative to the Northern Corridor (the traditional route through Russia) and the Southern Corridor (which runs through Iran).

Before 2022, the Northern Corridor carried more than 86 percent of transport between Europe and China, while the Middle Corridor constituted less than 1 percent. Following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Northern Corridor became a financial and political liability, especially for Western countries aiming to counter Russian control over trade routes. Shipping volumes of the Northern Corridor dropped by half in 2023 compared to 2022. Part of this traffic moved to the Middle Corridor, with increases of 89 percent and 70 percent in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

The Middle Corridor has many advantages. It is a relatively safer route, especially given the disruptions along the Northern Corridor due to Western sanctions on Russia and those in accessing the Suez Canal through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait due to increased Houthi attacks on vessels. In addition to providing economic revenues to corridor countries, some define the Middle Corridor as a “crossroads of peace,” echoing the “peace pipelines” strategy of the past.

According to the World Bank, by 2030, the Middle Corridor can reduce travel times, while freight volumes could triple to 11 million tonnes, with a 30 percent increase in trade between China and the EU. However, progress in the Middle Corridor is slow, and various operational and regulatory problems are causing unpredictable delays. There are still logistical and infrastructural challenges. Most importantly, its annual capacity (6 million tons in 2024) is drastically below the Northern Corridor’s annual capacity of over 100 million tons.

Corridor wars through connectivity

Recently, connectivity and diversification have become key drivers in international politics, with regional and global powers seeking to expand their influence in the Middle Corridor. Japan is following these developments to diversify its trade routes while countering Russia and China. Although the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is not yet a key player in the Middle Corridor, various summits between GCC and Central Asian countries since 2023 have manifested growing cooperation and increased GCC investments in the region’s infrastructure.

As the natural entry point into Europe, Turkey understood the importance of connectivity to sustain economic, commercial, and investment relations and political and cultural ties within the region. In line with its geostrategic location, Turkey has invested in many connectivity projects since the 1990s, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the International Transport Corridor, the Black Sea Ring Highway, the Eurasia Tunnel, the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge, the Edirne-Kars high-speed railway, and the Northern Marmara Motorway.

The Middle Corridor, as “the most reliable trade route between Asia and Europe,” presents Turkey with a historic opportunity to establish itself as a strategic transit hub in Europe-China trade. Diversifying its energy suppliers could reduce Russian influence in Turkey’s energy policy while expanding its influence in Central Asia and strengthening its economic ties with the EU. From the Turkish perspective, the corridor would improve its strategic position and strengthen its relations with Turkic-speaking countries in the region.

For the European Union, the Middle Corridor aligns with its Global Gateway strategy. The EU defined the development of the Middle Corridor as a priority to secure connectivity in the transport and energy sectors and promote sustainable economic growth in the region. While current global challenges increase the need for solid partnerships, Central Asia is a €340 billion economy, growing at an average rate of 5 percent annually, with further potential for collaboration. The EU sees the Middle Corridor as a fast and safer route connecting Europe and China, which helps diversify supply chains.

The Middle Corridor serving Russia, China, and Iran

For China, the development of the Middle Corridor is an opening to integrate into global markets and supply chains, an opportunity to reduce its financial burden and dependence on routes controlled by Russia, and also an escape from US sanctions.

Russia remains a major obstacle in developing the Middle Corridor. For regional countries, Moscow would “do everything in its power to control overland trade flows.” While Russia is currently distracted with its war against Ukraine, considering Russia’s sensitivities, it will at some point want to disrupt Western involvement in the region or even exploit the corridor for its own benefit. Russia has already begun exploiting the Caspian Sea and Kazakhstan to bypass Western sanctions. Moscow aims to leverage the enhanced connectivity of the Caspian Sea for military purposes, including the transport of Shahed drones from Iran. Additionally, since 2022, Russia has increased its investment in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) to diversify its trade routes, reducing its reliance on East-West routes. Iran’s neighbors and even its allies bypassed Iran in current connectivity projects. This result is mainly due to international sanctions, Iran’s poor infrastructure, and a lack of investment. In 2023, representatives from Turkey, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan met to discuss the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan Route, and Tehran immediately proposed a third alternative connecting this route to Iran. Tehran also invests in routes linking Iran to China via Afghanistan to secure a stronger foothold and influence the balance of power within regional trade routes. Iran perceives the Zangezur Corridor as a potential threat that might increase Turkey’s presence near its borders. For Tehran, this project is “Turkey’s highway to Turan.”

Potential strategy for the United States, the EU, and Turkey

Although Central Asia is pivotal in ongoing corridor wars, the region is still not an American priority. The United States needs a comprehensive and updated Central Asia strategy. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently signaled, a first step could be to end the Jackson-Vanik Amendment , which restricts formal trade relations with nonmarket economies such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The region also needs American investment to modernize the Middle Corridor. In addition to direct economic benefits, the United States could counterbalance the influence of Russia and China. While great connectivity would enable regional countries’ ambitions, for the United States, it would facilitate access to vast mineral and rare earth reserves, which globally are under significant Chinese control.

The Middle Corridor serves as a lifeline for the landlocked region. Regional countries have the political will and determination to develop the corridor’s potential. In the age of great power competition, these countries have significant room for maneuvering, and they benefit from the multidimensional foreign policy they pursue to enhance their autonomy. However, there is a growing mismatch between expectations and the capacity of the Middle Corridor.

The United States, the EU, and Turkey should cooperate and intensify their engagement with these countries to cultivate mutually beneficial partnerships. Turkey is wildly successful as Ankara invests political capital in strengthening relations. Enhancing partnerships with regional governments and investing in infrastructure would benefit regional governments and the West, as they can maintain their influence in shaping global trade routes. Given that Russia, China, and Iran are trying to prevent the growing Western influence in the region, the West must immediately recognize the strategic importance of transit corridors. As an influence war is intensifying over transit routes, the United States should be at the center of these developments—and not in the periphery—to benefit and counter the geopolitical challenges of Russia, China, and Iran.

Karel Valansi is a political columnist who analyses the Middle East and foreign policy issues in Şalom Newspaper and T24. Follow her on X @karelvalansi.

Explore other issues

The post Why the Middle Corridor matters amid a geopolitical resorting appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In Syria’s fragile transition there’s a glimmer of a more stable Middle East

Charles Lister — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

For the better part of half a century, Syria has been an open wound in the heart of the Middle East, provoking instability, fueling conflict, and brutally suppressing its own people. Throughout Syria’s nearly fourteen-year civil crisis, a long list of destabilizing knock-on effects spilled over into neighboring countries and the world at large. The long-standing moniker of “what happens in Syria never stays in Syria” perfectly encapsulated what for most of the past decade looked to be a truly intractable crisis.

All of that changed on December 8, 2024, when Bashar al-Assad fled his palace in Damascus en route to a hurried and unexpected asylum in Russia. After a sudden and lightning-fast offensive, a coalition of armed opposition groups toppled Assad’s regime like a house of cards—in the space of ten days. All of a sudden, the international community has been presented with a historic and strategic opportunity to reshape the heart of the Middle East into a more stable, more integrated, and more constructive part of the region.

Syria’s ongoing transition is profoundly fragile. It faces enormous challenges, but it also presents the international community with a dilemma. Since day one, the transition has been led and dominated at the top by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former affiliate of al-Qaeda that was originally born out of the Islamic State group’s predecessor movement, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). That historical baggage provides reason for pause when it comes to engaging Syria’s interim authorities.

However, the HTS of today is the outcome of nearly a decade of change. After splitting from ISIS in 2013, it went to war with the terror group. It publicly broke ties with al-Qaeda in 2016 and proceeded to facilitate the entry of thousands of soldiers into its territory by NATO member Turkey; agreed to and complied with a yearslong ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Russia; established a technocratic “salvation government” in northwest Syria that delivered a higher level of services than other regions of the country; launched crippling crackdowns on both ISIS and al-Qaeda; and began engaging with the international community behind closed doors. Throughout this formative post-2016 period, HTS’s ideology changed in ways that are arguably unprecedented in the history of the jihadist movement, with it not just turning away from global jihad, but turning against it—while embracing “revolution” and the green flag of Syria’s popular uprising.

Despite HTS and its leader Ahmed al-Sharaa being at the helm in Damascus, much of the international community has rushed to engage—calculating that contact and engagement offers a far greater chance of shaping the outcomes of a fragile transition than a policy of isolation. Initially, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland eased many sanctions linked to Syria’s economy, in the hope of breathing some life back into the country. For its part, the outgoing Biden administration introduced a six-month “general license” in January 2025, temporarily waiving some restrictive measures. But this had no effect in facilitating transactions with governing institutions in Syria.

After years of extraordinary conflict, Syria’s economy is broken and the humanitarian crisis worse than ever. Ninety percent of Syrians live under the poverty line; 70 percent of Syrians rely on aid; 99 percent of the Syrian pound’s value has been lost; 50 percent of the country’s basic infrastructure is destroyed; and fuel supplies have dropped to nearly zero. No matter who was running Syria’s transition, the prospects of successfully escaping such catastrophic conditions would be impossible without sanctions relief. Regional states—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, in particular—stand poised to flood Syria with investment, oil, electricity, and cash, but not while American sanctions prohibit them.

Taking advantage of the historic opportunity provided by Assad’s fall requires doing away with short-term tactical approaches and embracing a long-term view focused on Syrian and regional stability. On December 8, transitional authorities in Damascus were restricted only to HTS. Three months later, some things had changed: A national dialogue and conference had been held; broad committees had been formed to frame a constitutional declaration; and a transitional government was formed that significantly widened representation and technocratic rule in Syria’s ministries. The latter marked a significant broadening of government representation, with just four HTS members out of twenty-three ministers. More than half of the new cabinet members were educated and worked professionally in Europe and the United States. All in all, it marked a shift toward genuine, technocratic government.

Nevertheless, some instability continues. Deeply entrenched sociopolitical and sectarian tensions remain a source of acute concern, but a major spike in violence—as was seen on March 7-8, 2025—was short lived. A government-appointed investigative committee has been tasked with determining culpability for crimes. Meanwhile, structural issues relating to disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR), foreign fighters, and challenges posed by ISIS and an Alawite armed resistance all persist, but ultimately, a fragile transition still offers the best hope for gradual stabilization.

The United States and NATO face two options: to engage and conditionally support Syria’s transition in the hope that it will continue to consolidate control and broaden its representation; or to disengage and isolate the transition in favor or some other alternative. Neither is without risk, but the latter guarantees severe instability while the former aims to avoid it. President Trump’s announcement in Saudi Arabia in May 2025 that he intends to end all sanctions on Syria is a sign that strategic calculations are returning to the forefront of US policymaking on Syria. Subsequent public comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in front of Congress underlined that shift, as he suggested that if the United States did not lift sanctions, Syria was destined to collapse back into civil conflict. The key here will be time – how swiftly can executive waivers be issued to de facto remove sanctions restrictions on Syria’s economy? The EU’s decision on May 20 to lift all sanctions would suggest that things are set to move quickly. Should US diplomats return to Damascus, Syria could confidently be placed on a new trajectory of recovery.

Meanwhile, US Central Command (CENTCOM) has continued to play an instrumental role in facilitating negotiations between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Damascus, and in pressing the SDF to accept the framework agreement signed on March 11. Beginning in mid-December 2024, CENTCOM contact has included meetings with Sharaa and an established line of communication with the Defense and Interior ministries, through which counter-ISIS activities are coordinated, deconflicted, and planned. Since January 2024, at least eight ISIS plots have been foiled by the interim government in part due to intelligence provided by the United States. A surge in US drone strikes targeting legacy al-Qaeda operatives in Syria’s northwest in February 2025 was also almost certainly the result of a similar exchange.

With the United States determined to minimize its military and strategic investments in the Middle East and with NATO increasingly distracted by concerns in Europe, the prospect for stabilizing one of the thorniest and most destabilizing conflict theaters in recent history should be a no-brainer. Despite the risks and the many unknowns, prioritizing a strategy on Syria that is focused on shaping a stable and capable central government that is integrated into its neighborhood and capable of collectively resolving its own issues should be the only option on the table. That is the choice already made by Europe and the Middle East and the United States should follow suit. Should the Trump administration decisively join that track of engagement, the chances of Syria charting a course of stability will rise significantly.

Charles Lister is a senior fellow and head of the Syria Initiative at the Middle East Institute. Follow him on X at @Charles_Lister.

Explore other issues

The post In Syria’s fragile transition there’s a glimmer of a more stable Middle East appeared first on Atlantic Council.

2024 in the rear view

Rich Outzen — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

2024 brought a host of developments and changes in the security and defense environment facing the United States, Turkey, and their NATO partners. Some of these dynamics were political and geopolitical in nature, some operational, others military and technical. As the Defense Journal assesses and describes the state of the Alliance in 2025 for its readers, a brief retrospective on the year just passed and its impact provides a part of the necessary context.

Geopolitical shaping events

Momentous geopolitical events since our winter issue have included the advent of Donald Trump’s second term as US president, the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, and the apparent revelation in Europe that conventional military defense is a sovereign responsibility that cannot be outsourced in perpetuity. These events have had significant implications for the security of NATO, Turkey, and the United States.

Trump’s return has had several immediate effects on the United States (and thus the global) security environment. His approach narrows the US global mission from maintaining a liberal world order to pursuing US national interests, while adopting a tone of strategic ambiguity toward both rivals and allies. He has simultaneously directed reform of the US military to reemphasize combat readiness and lethality while minimizing social or ideological programs. As commander in chief, Trump has directed US soldiers to conduct counterterror strikes in places like Somalia and Yemen even as his negotiators seek to defuse conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere.

The fall of Bashar al-Assad after an eleven-day rebel offensive reshaped the strategic map of the Middle East. Iran lost a valuable strategic position in its multidimensional “resistance” against Israel and Western influence. Russia lost its sunk investment in Assad and a degree of its influence in the Middle East. Turkey has gained greater stability on its southern border, close defense and intelligence ties with the new Syrian authorities, and prospects for expanded regional trade and a leading role in Syrian reconstruction. The challenges of stabilizing Syria, and tensions between Israel and Turkey stemming from their respective threat perceptions, have no immediate or apparent solution, and will require deft diplomacy to manage.

Shifts that might have attracted more attention in other times were easy to miss, but still noteworthy in terms of global security. China and Russia took steps to bolster the military junta in Myanmar that is teetering on the edge of collapse against a rebel coalition. Battles between the Sudanese army (backed by Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) and the antigovernment Rapid Support Forces (supported by Russia and the United Arab Emirates) have shifted decisively in favor of the army, though not yet presaging an end to the civil war. The war in Ukraine grinds on amid serious attempts by Trump to forge a ceasefire. Early 2025 continues to be an era of persistent conflict and great power competition, but one with dramatic developments that will echo throughout this and future years.

Strategic alliance development

International patterns of alliance and armament over the past half-year have reflected the weight of geopolitical changes noted above. Deep and effective US support to Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression has led to a tighter convergence of what has been referred to as the axis of upheaval, with China, Iran, and North Korea sending weapons, supplies, and even soldiers to aid the Russian war effort. A dozen or more other countries have provided diplomatic support to Moscow, but these three have become critical suppliers of weapons and cash for the Kremlin. This is a trend that began before 2024, but has only accelerated in recent months.

The global arms market continues to shift in other significant ways. The United States in 2024 cemented its leading position in arms exports, accounting for 43 percent of global exports. Russian exports have sharply decreased as domestic production has been consumed by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Italy and Turkey have more than doubled their national shares of global exports over the past several years (2 percent to 4.8 percent for Italy and 0.8 percent to 1.7 percent for Turkey). Five Turkish defense firms rank among the one hundred largest in the world—and a sixth, Baykar, would almost certainly be high on the list if all of its sales data were publicly released. Only the United States, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom match or exceed this number. Of particular note has been the continued rise in demand for Turkish armaments from Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

Europe, for its part, has shown signs of finally getting serious about developing its own conventional military deterrent vis-à-vis Russia—or at least talking about doing so. Shocked by Trump’s heavy-handed conditionality on future aid to Ukraine, Brussels and its member states have drawn up plans for massive new defense spending and other deterrent steps—if taxpayers and military-age youth prove willing. Yet the European Union’s initial formulation of deterrence against Russia independent of Washington and without integrating Turkish geography, military capabilities, and strategic resources does not inspire confidence, especially given the long years needed to restore defense industrial capacity even assuming consistent commitment. European firms and national leaders would do well to welcome Turkish contributions to European defense planning and resourcing both in NATO and in EU planning by following through on plans to sell Ankara Eurofighters and encouraging more collaboration like that between Italy’s Leonardo and Turkey’s Baykar.

While the past half year has demonstrated volatility at the geopolitical and political levels, it has brought multipolarity and diffusion of power at the strategic level. This has played out in the evolution of alliances and the flow of arms and trade more broadly. In mid-2024 dualistic constructs (autocracy versus democracy, the US-led Alliance against an axis of evil) retained some utility. The current environment is messier, with issue-specific coalitions and transactional diplomacy creating a kaleidoscope of rivals, partners, and targets that, for now at least, deny predictable patterns and lead some to question the credibility of the international system’s most potent actor.

Operational trends

As geopolitics and alliances continue to evolve, so, too, does war in operational terms. In a world with ongoing “hot wars” in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, several discernible trends can be identified. These include diminishing returns for artillery as seen in Ukraine, failure to achieve military victory through ground maneuver forces for Russia and Israel, and the fragility of lightly armed proxy forces in various theaters.

Russia since 2022 has compensated for shortcomings in its infantry, armor, and air forces through reliance on superior tube and rocket artillery, exacting a heavy toll on Ukrainian defenders in the process. Yet in late 2024, losses among Russian artillery units rose as Ukrainian drone tactics and counterbattery fire became more effective. While Russia still outproduces NATO in artillery ammunition and continues to fire it at prodigious rates, its advantage is decreasing in relative terms.

Russia has continued to advance at high cost to try and consolidate control over the nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory it occupies, but has failed to end the war via ground maneuver after three years. The difficulty of ending wars through ground maneuver even against inferior opponents can also be seen in Gaza, where operations which have continued for eighteen months are not yet meeting the stated war goals of military and political leaders. Both the Russian and Israeli campaigns reflect the historical difficulty of reconciling the political nature of conflict termination with the operational conduct of wars, and a resultant tendency for destructive wars to yield stalemate when that task remains incomplete.

The recent period produced impressive operational results in other cases, notably Israel’s campaign against Iran’s regional proxy network and the Sudanese army’s efforts to regain control of the national capital region from the insurgent Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia. In late 2024 Israel crippled Lebanese Hezbollah and struck Iranian-supported militia targets in Syria and Iraq during an audacious campaign involving air strikes, ground maneuver, and exploding cellphones. Between November 2024 and March 2025 the Sudanese Army routed the RSF from Khartoum and other areas in central Sudan. The RSF had been supported by a number of foreign sponsors, including the United Arab Emirates and several other regional countries, but ultimately failed to achieve local or regional legitimacy—as had the Iranian proxy groups in Lebanon and Syria, and arguably in Iraq and Yemen as well. The past several months have badly undermined the notion popular over the past decade that proxy wars can effectively “enable intervention on the cheap.”

Military technical developments on the horizon

Over the past several months sixth-generation fighter aircraft have moved from concept to reality. China flew two prototypes in December 2024, one produced by Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group and the other by AVIC Shenyang Aircraft. US prototypes for a Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) aircraft have been under evaluation since 2020, but in March 2025 the Boeing F-47 was officially selected as the program’s platform. A half-dozen other countries have done some sixth-generation work—integrating advanced stealth, artificial intelligence, manned-unmanned teaming, and other advanced technologies—though even for those with the deepest pockets, fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft will be mainstays for the foreseeable future.

Artificial intelligence is a growing element in military planning and readiness. While the United States and many of its allies have endorsed the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, many potential adversaries and rivals have not. Military applications for AI focus at present on information processing, threat identification, and decision-making, areas in which the United States has relative advantage. The Department of Defense’s Defense Innovation Unit is implementing a project, Thunderforge, to deploy such capabilities to headquarters in Asia and Europe. The military services each have designated units to test concepts and systems related to AI in the field. The drive to develop effective defenses against small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) has gained urgency with the continued broad proliferation of cheap, easy-to-use, lethal UAS around the world. The December 2024 Department of Defense adoption of a classified strategy to accelerate counter-UAS development signals the rising criticality of the need for cost-effective and combat-effective counters to the cheap and plentiful threat. This is an area ripe for technical development and fielding in the near future.

Adaptive Alliance

The shifting dynamics at all these levels—geopolitical, strategic, operational, and technical—shape the contours of defense and security challenges for the United States and its NATO allies. These are certainly challenging times, yet the Alliance has endured for over seven decades through other chaotic and difficult periods because the basic value proposition of mutual defense among the members remains sound. Secretary General Mark Rutte strikes the right tone with his assessment that “there is no alternative to NATO” for either the United States or its partners, and that despite frictions related to burden sharing, domestic politics, and sometimes divergent national interest, NATO’s summit in The Hague in late June will show the Alliance evolving rather than dissolving.

Rich Outzen is a geopolitical consultant and nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Turkey with thirty-two years of government service both in uniform and as a civilian. Follow him on X @RichOutzen.

Explore other issues

The post 2024 in the rear view appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Q&A with Haluk Bayraktar

Atlantic Council Turkey Programs — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

Haluk Bayraktar is the CEO of Baykar, an autonomous technology company based in Turkey. He began his tenure at Baykar in 2004 as an engineering manager, when Baykar’s autonomous technology efforts were still nascent, and has been involved in every aspect of the business’s growth into a leading firm in the Turkish defense sector: project management, logistics, and business development. Baykar’s pioneering role in the rise of the Turkish drone industry makes Bayraktar a fascinating and well-informed observer on security and alliance dynamics affecting Turkey, NATO, and the region.

This interview has been lightly edited for style.

Defense Journal by Atlantic Council IN TURKEY (DJ): Thanks for taking the time to talk with us. Let’s start with developments of common interest to readers in Turkey, the United States, and Europe. Following the industrial and technology cooperation deal with Italian defense and aerospace group Leonardo, what’s next for Baykar in the Western market?

Bayraktar: Baykar has become the world’s biggest drone maker, with thirty-eight international partners now—from Europe and NATO to the Turkic countries, Africa, and the Middle East. Among NATO allies, we have partnered with Poland, Romania, Kosovo, Croatia, and of course, Turkey’s military, law enforcement, and disaster relief agencies. Turkey is a NATO ally, so all our products and technologies follow the technical standards and military specifications of the West and are entirely compatible with Western systems. The Western market is critical for us.

As for Leonardo, we are on the path to establishing a joint venture (JV). They are a major player in Europe, and their work areas are highly compatible with ours—a lot of synergies and complementarity. We were already working with them, integrating payloads and systems with our products: This has become a very strong bond or marriage. A JV is a great opportunity/potential to bring robust, field-proven systems to a broader market. Baykar has drones all around the world, including tactical and strategic platforms. Leonardo produces critical subsystems with great potential for Europe and broader markets where they have a presence, including South America and elsewhere, but Europe is our main focus. In Europe, there is no other mature alternative to what we have.

DJ: What differentiates your approach to manned technology? What is the key to your value proposition?

Bayraktar: We are a tech developer but not just tech. It’s about tech but also about ways to use that technology—about operational employment. Our approach centers on reliability, safety, and robustness. Our experience brings lots of feedback from various areas, which makes our products even more robust. So, we combine technology with real-world experience. Our fleet now exceeds 300,000 flight hours per year, so there is a lot to analyze. Our systems offer the highest performance-to-cost across the market. They are the most adaptable with continuous innovation, and they are equipped with the most advanced technology. In the defense sector, there are huge manufacturing capacity challenges everywhere, whereas there has been a great buildup in Turkey in the last twenty-five years. Over just twenty years, we’ve gone from roughly seventy to over 3,000 companies in the sector, with thousands of products. It’s a great ecosystem with important internal synergies. Baykar has established mass production capacity for unmanned systems. Our Istanbul base is the biggest facility of its kind in the world. So, potential customers know we can deliver quickly. We produce 250 Bayraktar TB2 [unmanned combat aerial vehicles] per year, fifty Akinci [high-altitude, long-endurance] UCAVs per year, and we’re ramping up to support larger capacity as the Bayraktar TB3 UCAV and the Kizilelma unmanned fighter jet move from development to production.

DJ: What is your conceptual and defense technological approach to Kizilelma? Do you see it as a loyal wingman to the fifth-generation Kaan fighter or a pathway to replace Kaan in the future?

Bayraktar: Kaan is a national manned fighter program, funded by the government. Kizilelma is Baykar’s own design and project. It is our final target on the unmanned family of products—a fighter with both subsonic and supersonic capabilities. We do not envision it as a loyal wingman, though it can work as an integrated adjunct in theory, if one were to couple it and use it with manned fighters in risky environments. US President Donald Trump recently introduced the American F-47 as a mothership controlling other fighters, and the consortium developing [the Global Combat Air Program involving Italy, the United Kingdom, and Japan] conceived it in similar fashion. But we envision Kizilelma as operating on its own with a fleet control system. As a company, we don’t develop manned systems. We exclusively invest in drones. That is our focus. Kizilelma is an aircraft with aggressive maneuvering, autonomous operation, and controls that can be flown by few operators. It completed its first flight in 2022, and we see that as a revolution. Bayraktar TB3 has the capability to take off and land on short-runway aircraft carriers. Kizilelma will have this feature too.

Fighter pilots stationed at aircraft carriers have to fly every single day and complete a certain number of sorties annually to stay current. That’s perhaps fifty training flights per day. By contrast, unmanned platforms do not require as much effort or so many daily landings to be certified for carriers. Moreover, Kizilelma will integrate artificial intelligence to assist with delegation of command and other operational aspects.

DJ: How do you view the F-35 debate in the United States, especially Elon Musk’s view that manned aircraft are not the best path forward?

Bayraktar: There are about 13,000 manned fighters worldwide right now–Russian, Chinese, US, and other systems combined. We believe that all those platforms will eventually be converted to unmanned systems, even though one cannot prove that point just yet. But when you look at the field, it’s clearly headed in that direction. To be clear, they may not be replaced one for one. It may be more like three to five unmanned platforms to replace each manned fighter. Unmanned systems will be everywhere, and it will be a crowded airspace—not just unmanned fighters but smaller first-person view drones and loitering munitions. They will be everywhere, and every country will need the ability to build and use these things. For nations to defend themselves in this century, this is a necessary capability—much like the ability to produce bullets.

DJ: Turkey has shown great agility in what has been termed “drone diplomacy,” or complementing regional policy initiatives with defense sales. What is the nature of public/private partnership in Turkish drone diplomacy?

Bayraktar: Overall, the major players in the Turkish defense ecosystem are still government-owned institutional firms. The private sector is smaller but dynamic and growing. Of course, I think that the private sector’s dynamism is preferable. SAHA is the industry group representing the smaller and midsize firms that comprise most of our private sector, and I am currently serving as the chairman.

Still, the system operates similarly for public and private firms. Anyone wishing to export applies to the Ministry of National Defense, which in turn coordinates with the Foreign Ministry and the intelligence community to issue an export license. It is the government’s decision at the end of the day. The government doesn’t promote private-sector firms per se. The Defense Industry Agency (SSB) has foreign relationships and partnerships, and they generally favor government-affiliated companies. One of the objectives of SAHA has been to help small and medium-sized companies become more visible. Our annual exhibition helps smaller players. Baykar is an example of successful growth: We’ve gone from five employees in 2004 to over 6,000 today. We know how important it is to become more visible, and we support other firms doing that. We try to make it easier for the newcomers. That is my responsibility as SAHA chairman.

My view is that European countries are better at using governmental influence to promote national commercial products. Baykar’s products promote themselves through their unique utility as well as aggressive marketing and social media presence. The Turkish government doesn’t subsidize sales, although other countries may. But we don’t rely on public credit or government grants. This is unique to Baykar: We’ve developed an unmanned fighter with the company’s own money. At the end of the day, since companies are required to receive a permit to export, the government plays an important role. The higher levels [of government officials] do talk about it and the firms need approval. The government spending environment matters greatly for domestic firms, too. And while Turkey spent 4.5 percent of its [gross domestic product] on defense before 2000, that number has remained close to 2 percent for two decades now. It was just in the last two years that it approached 3 percent.

The bottom line is that drone diplomacy is a reality and the Bayraktar TB2, in particular, has proven that. But the government doesn’t lead: market demand leads, the company follows, and the government supports.

DJ: Can you talk a little bit about the price/performance balance for Baykar systems?

Bayraktar: The Bayraktar TB2 is a very good example for price/performance balance. The initial purchase price or acquisition cost is one factor, but the life cycle, including maintenance and durability, has to be considered as well because reliability affects long-term costs. Let’s say you procure an alternative to Bayraktar TB2 for half the price. In reality, this is not an advantage if this “alternative” has double the crash rate. So, Bayraktar TB2 has a reliability advantage because you don’t face as many crashes and the cost consideration changes.

Unmanned systems represent a new niche in the defense ecosystem. Aerospace is conservative, especially for manned systems: extensive certifications and regulations serve to protect human life. But unmanned [aerial] vehicles are a different paradigm—you can add new sensors, new technology, and new operational approaches rapidly. An example is the fact that manned systems still use mechanical gyros, whereas the technologically advanced UAVs are currently using even cheaper MEMS [i.e., microelectromechanical system) sensors, fiber-optic alternatives with high-end software systems. You can easily innovate in the unmanned realm with the latest technology, whereas you need to be conservative in the manned domain because you need to make sure that each new step complies with the certification and safety standards of manned aviation. You can qualify unmanned systems with very high-end software—even AI software—and hardware much more quickly.

Baykar has a price advantage because we are vertically integrated. We have strong in-house avionics, power systems, and ground element design. This allows us to tailor critical subsystems and enable attractive pricing with high-end capability. The TB2, with a six-unit ground system and everything, still costs less than a manned platform. Our TB2 fleet recently passed the one-million-hour milestone, so our operating cost is just several hundred dollars per hour—compared to a minimum of $20,000 per hour for a single manned F-16. When you can mass produce, availability and reliability turn into a potent combination. Additionally, customers benefit from the rapid in-service schedule compared to a manned system. A country can field a full UAV system with trained people within a year, providing a very quick and affordable defense capability compared to a manned system, which is a multiyear exercise.

DJ: You mentioned thirty-eight international partners earlier. Ukraine was one of your earliest: Have you been able to apply lessons from that partnership with newer programs, such as those with the Gulf countries?

Bayraktar: Ukraine was Baykar’s first export customer. Our cooperation with Ukraine opened up the strategic level of cooperation for us. We had been working with them since 2011, but things moved rapidly after 2014. In 2014, no one else would sell them armed drones. We didn’t yet have a mature system, but we agreed to help. They were in need, huge need, and searching. That was more than ten years ago. They couldn’t get what they wanted elsewhere either, so they came to Turkey. President Erdoğan’s leadership mattered at that point, as he considered Ukraine a neighbor and friend in need. With the government’s support, we supplied armed drones starting in 2019—the order was placed in 2018. They were very happy and this was very important. President Zelensky visited in August 2019 after taking office. At his request, we agreed to build a factory in Ukraine. He acquired more systems, and we discussed an offset-type obligation. I told them: “You have very good engines. Maybe we can figure out a way to use your engines on our platforms.” So, we created effective cooperation with Motor Sich and others. In a sense, Turkey and Ukraine are complementary countries. When the war escalated in 2022, we did our best to support Ukraine. You may remember the European crowd-sourcing campaigns for Europeans to buy TB2s on Ukraine’s behalf, but we never accepted the money. We donated the platforms, giving up over $110 million in income that we chose not to generate. We are not war profiteers. We delivered all Bayraktar TB2s free of charge as part of those campaigns and the campaign funds were used for humanitarian aid and other pressing needs to support Ukraine.

Haluk Bayraktar is the CEO of Baykar, an autonomous technology company based in Turkey. Follow him on X at @haluk.

Explore other issues

The post Q&A with Haluk Bayraktar appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Q&A with Dov Zakheim

Atlantic Council Turkey Programs — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

The Defense Journal of the Atlantic Council in Turkey recently interviewed former US Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, a longtime observer of US foreign and national security policy, regarding recent tensions between US allies Israel and Turkey. Those tensions have received extensive media coverage, including the remarks of both President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter’s April 7 visit to the White House—which featured Trump expressing optimism that tensions were manageable and that he might play a mediating role.

This interview has been lightly edited for style.

DJ: Thank you for your time in speaking with us. Israel and Turkey have had alternating close and tense relations for decades but maintained discrete contacts throughout the cyclical ups and downs. Are they still talking?

Zakheim: It’s hard to know because if they are talking it’s probably through intelligence channels, which get reported the least. My guess is that they probably are, if only to deconflict over Syria. There was a report commissioned by Prime Minister Netanyahu that said tensions over Syria could create a dangerous situation. Regional press reported a conclusion that the countries “could go to war,” but that’s not what the report said—just that the tensions were potentially quite serious. Turkish hard-right commentators from MHP [Milli Hareket Partisi, the National Movement Party, of Turkish nationalist] and HUDA PAR [Hür Dava Partisi, the Independent Cause Party, of Kurdish Islamist] have pretty much said the same thing; even President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said similar things. The tensions are worse than what happened after the Mavi Marmara incident in some ways¹. The military and security establishments in both countries tend to be more realists and to seek de-escalation, though; so, they are probably still talking.

DJ: After the very tense period between 2009–2014, President Barack Obama and later Trump worked to ameliorate Turkey-Israel tensions, leading to a rapprochement of sorts. This contributed to a softening of tensions over time. Without US involvement, the two countries pursued a diplomatic reconciliation in 2023 that was interrupted by the Hamas attacks of October 7 and the Israeli response. Do the two countries need the United States as a mediator or are they better off together proceeding at their own pace and modalities?

Zakheim: Trump has offered to mediate between Israel and Turkey so as to improve their relationship. But Washington might be too distracted by the president’s other priorities. President Trump has focused on de-escalating the situation in Gaza, which could indirectly benefit Israel-Turkish tensions stemming in part from the conflict there. In addition, the Trump administration also has Ukraine, tariffs and trade, and a lot of things competing for the attention of the president and his key advisers. It is not surprising that Netanyahu raised Syria with President Trump, because Israelis take a different view of what’s going on there and are concerned about the Turkish role: They are not comfortable with what they see as growth in Turkish influence there. Discontent in Jerusalem can’t be ignored, though it appears that President Trump’s initial response was balanced and that Netanyahu didn’t get the backing for his position that he might have wanted.

DJ: Syria is a unique challenge between Israel and Turkey now because it essentially makes them neighbors—tense and distrustful neighbors—not just countries in the same region. How do both countries meet their minimum interests in Syria?

Zakheim: It shouldn’t be zero-sum between these two, because there are other players in the equation. The Iranians are still present in Syria to a degree, and the Russians of course hope to keep air and naval bases [there]. Israelis are divided as to whether it is good or bad for Russia to stay or go. It appears Netanyahu thinks it may not be a bad thing to use the Russians to balance Turkish influence. Then there is the question of Damascus, the transitional government, itself. Some think they haven’t really evolved from their roots in al-Qaeda, while others say Damascus—especially transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa—have been signaling moderation and reaching out to the West because they know that they need Western support. Where there are many players, a modus vivendi is possible, especially if Sharaa wants to move toward the West more than the Assad regime did. There is great fluidity in Syria now. The Kurdish factor still has to play out as well and the success or degree of their reintegration affects Ankara’s positioning. Abdullah Öcalan may want to disarm the movement he founded, the PKK [Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan, or Kurdish Workers’ Party], but it is possible that parts of the movement in Iraq or Syria do not². With so many possibilities, Jerusalem and Ankara both would do well to show flexibility.

DJ: Is Syria without Assad better for Israel than Syria with Assad?

Zakheim: I think it will very much depend on where the Syrian government goes. We haven’t heard the same sort of vitriol out of Damascus as under Assad, despite Israel taking more territory and conducting air attacks. It may be that the Israel-Syria border becomes a quiet border like it was under Hafez al-Assad as opposed to the more dangerous border that became the norm under Bashar and his backers, Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Bashar was a slimy figure to the Turks as well: He lied to Ankara and was problematic for Israel. It may well be that a government that proceeds the way al-Sharaa says he wants to go could be a plus for both Israel and Turkey.

DJ: How much of the current Turkey-Israel tension do you see as structural or systemic, and how much personal (i.e., a product of the combative Netanyahu-Erdoğan relationship)?

Zakheim: There is no doubt that the personalities don’t line up very well. For comparison, though, we can look at the relationship between Netanyahu and former President Joe Biden—they were not fond of one another, but the two countries remained close. It was Erdoğan who patched things up gradually with Netanyahu over a decade. Erdoğan is a realist, and he knows very well that Israel has a number of things to offer and is an important market. Remember that Turkey is developing a very high-tech military and other industries, and there are many areas where they might partner with Israel. There was over $1 billion in bilateral trade that has now been cut off—though some still comes through third countries. The fact remains that Erdoğan is a pragmatist. If Gaza is somehow settled, that is a way for trade relations to be restored, and these two countries are potentially very important partners for trade and security cooperation.

Overall, despite the ups and downs there is a degree of complementarity. Both leaders are survivors and have pragmatist streaks. Gaza is a place where the United States can clearly play a major role in reconciling interests. If there is reconstruction, Turkish companies, especially in infrastructure, can have a role. A Turkish constructive role in stabilizing Gaza could be a new pivot point. It is true that Erdoğan plays to his base, but both he and Netanyahu remain less vitriolic about “the other” country in the equation than the hardliners in their own coalitions.

Dov S. Zakheim is a member of the Atlantic Council Board of Directors. He was US undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer from 2001-04. He is a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and senior fellow at the CNA Corporation.

Explore other issues

1 The Mavi Marmara incident involved Israeli Navy interdiction of civilian ships trying to break a blockade of Gaza, which resulted in the death of nine Turkish activists and ended with a 2013 apology by Netanyahu.

2 On May 12^th 2025, following a congress of PKK leadership, the organization announced a decision to disarm and dissolve organizationally. The impacts of this decision on the ground in Iraq and Syria remain to be seen, as noted in the interview.

The post Q&A with Dov Zakheim appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Transatlantic relations and a region in flux

Atlantic Council Turkey Program — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

Foreword

Dramatic events altered the geopolitical landscape, affecting Turkey, the United States, and NATO in late 2024 and early 2025. The election of Donald Trump as the forty seventh president of America, a ceasefire in Gaza after months of showdown between Israel and Iran’s Axis of Resistance, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria have challenged many assumptions and regional political-military considerations. The fifth issue of the Defense Journal assesses key dynamics as we enter a new era. The Defense Journal team examines the rise of the hyperwar concept via military applications of artificial intelligence and the frontier of development for robotic systems. We also look at trends in key US policy concerns in the region to the south of Turkey, including Israel and Syria. If the first months of the second Trump administration are any indication, rapid change and a high tempo in US foreign policy decisions affecting Washington, Ankara, and their shared interests across several regions is the new normal. The Editorial Team hopes you find these contributions interesting and useful.

Rich Outzen and Can Kasapoglu, Defense Journal by Atlantic Council IN TURKEY Co-managing editors

Articles

2024 in the rear view

By Rich Outzen

Hyperwar, artificial intelligence, and Homo sapien

By Can Kasapoğlu

Turkish-American defense and energy partnerships suit the new transatlantic landscape

By Greg Bloom

Q&A with Dov Zakheim

By Atlantic Council Turkey Program

In Syria’s fragile transition there’s a glimmer of a more stable Middle East

By Charles Lister

Q&A with Haluk Bayraktar

By Atlantic Council Turkey Program

Why the Middle Corridor matters amid a geopolitical resorting

By Karel Valansi

Honorary advisory board

The Defense Journal by Atlantic Council IN TURKEY‘s honorary advisory board provides vision and direction for the journal. We are honored to have Atlantic Council board directors Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former commander of US European Command; Amb. Paula J. Dobriansky, former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Gen. James L. Jones, former national security advisor to the President of the United States; Franklin D. Kramer, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, former US Ambassador to NATO; and Dov S. Zakheim, former Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark

Chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates & Board Director, Atlantic Council; former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO

Amb. Paula J. Dobriansky, Ph.D.

Senior Fellow at Harvard University JFK Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs; Board Director, Atlantic Council; former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001-2009)

Gen. James L. Jones

President, Jones Group International and Executive Chairman Emeritus, Atlantic Council; former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States

Franklin D. Kramer

Distinguished Fellow & Board Director, Atlantic Council; former US Assistant Secretary of Defense

Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute

CEO, Cambridge Global Advisors & Board Director, Atlantic Council; former US Permanent Representative to NATO

Dov S. Zakheim

Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Senior Fellow, CNA Corporation; Board Director, Atlantic Council; former US Under Secretary of Defense

Explore other issues

The post Transatlantic relations and a region in flux appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hyperwar, artificial intelligence, and Homo sapiens

Can Kasapoğlu — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:00:00 +0000

Rethinking the modern neuroanatomical charts of warfare

According to Napoleon, an army walks on its stomach. War, nonetheless, chiefly revolves around cognitive functions. Take a nineteenth-century Napoleonic artillery officer calculating the range of his guns to the target, for example. The officer’s prefrontal cortex hosts three major components: control, short-term memory, and arithmetic logic. This prefrontal exercise operates on the data provided by two other sources: a premotor-parietal top-down system optimized to update and continuously transform external data into an internal format, and a hippocampal bottom-up system to serve as an access code to memory from previously acquired knowledge or to detect novel information. In other words, an army fights on mathematical military data processing systems of the parietal and prefrontal brain regions. No matter how technological improvements have run extra miles to the present day, this cognitive formulation has not changed even on the margins. A contemporary F-35 pilot, assessing the processed situational data harvested by the aircraft’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System showcased on the helmet-mounted display, uses precisely the same biological decision-making algorithms as the Napoleonic artillery officer posited above—albeit on steroids and with a high-performance computing edge.

Today, mankind stands on the eve of a great change in this oldest cognitive tradition of warfighting. For the first time in military history, parietal and prefrontal brain regions may take a back seat in deciding concepts of operations and concepts of employment, perhaps even strategic planning prior to combat operations, while artificial intelligence will likely assume the lead. With the rise of autonomous weapon systems in distributed battlegrounds, the neuroanatomical outlook of warfare may be evolving into a new reality.

Smart digital algorithms and autonomous robotic warfighters are poised to replace not only the muscles but also the brains of warfare. This can occur because they can replicate electronically what our brains do in the biological realm and thus can overtake us by simply performing better, not differently. Robotics and artificial intelligence mimic the core characteristics of nature. Machine-learning and artificial neural networks are good examples of this mimicry. Our everyday AI features of facial and voice recognition and smart internet search predictions function in the virtual world much as they do in the human brain. Likewise, swarming is not merely a robotic function. Birds, bee colonies, and even bacteria swarm. AI might be “smarter” than humans through faster processing of effective mimicry, and robots similarly may swarm in a more coordinated and agile manner than biological agents.

AI and hyperwar: Data, robots, and satellites

In their 2017 Proceedings article released by the US Naval Institute, US Marine Corps General John Allen and high-technology entrepreneur Amir Husain described “hyperwar” as an emerging type of armed conflict that significantly reduces human decision-making. In the new type of wars, the authors argued, Homo sapiens’cognitive function of decision-making will nearly disappear from the OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Autonomous swarms of robotic warfare systems, high-speed networks married to machine-learning algorithms, AI-enabled cyber warfare tools, and miniaturized high-powered computing are likely to assume the lead roles in fighting wars. More importantly, humans might be removed from operational planning, with their role to be confined to merely very high-level and broad input. The rise of hyperwars will essentially bring groundbreaking combinations of emerging technologies, much as the German blitzkrieg combined in novel ways fast armor, air support, and radio communications. General Allen and Husain concluded that the gap between winners and losers would very likely resemble that of Saddam’s Iraqi Army facing the “second offset” technologies of electronic warfare, precision-guided munitions, and stealth platforms.

The Russo-Ukraine War serves as a battlefield laboratory to test possible elements of the coming hyperwars and the impact of artificial intelligence on conducting and analyzing warfare. First, the integration of satellite imagery intelligence and target and object recognition technologies has provided the Ukrainian military with a very important geospatial intelligence edge in kinetic operations. Second, the Ukrainian intelligence apparatus has resorted to neural networks to run ground social media content and other open-source data to monitor Russian servicemen and weapons systems, then to translate the input into target acquisition information and military intelligence. Third, playing smart with data has also sparked a capability hike in drone warfare. Open-source defense intelligence studies suggest that Ukrainian arms makers used publicly available artificial intelligence models to retrain drone software applications with the real-world data harvested from the conflict. This modified data has then been used to operate the drones themselves. Ukrainian robotic warfare assets have seen a capability boost in precision and targeting with the help of the data-mastering process. In the future, some robotic baselines will likely see a faster and more profound improvement with the new leap in AI and information management. Specific drone warfare systems, such as the American Switchblade and Russian Lancet-3, already have design philosophies that prioritize computer vision to run target identification.

It appears that the zeitgeistis on the side of the hyperwar. After all, digital data has been on a huge and exponential growth trend for at least one decade. In 2013, the world generated 4.4 zettabytes of data—with a zettabyte amounting to 10²¹ bytes. Estimates from that period forecast 163 zettabytes of global data to be produced in 2025, which was considered a gigantic magnitude. At current rates, the reality this year will be even higher, at 180 zettabytes of data, or even more. The climb in data generation is intertwined with a rise in drone warfare systems proliferation and employment globally, as well as the production of robotic warfare systems. The dual hike in data and robots forms the very basis of hyperwars.

Other areas to monitor are orbital warfare and space warfare systems. Unlike warfighting and maneuver warfare on the planet Earth, the space operational environment presents technical challenges rather than strategic ones. Satellites are very vulnerable to offensive action since their movements are very limited and incur massive technical requirements for even small moves. A recent war-gaming exercise by American space and defense bodies showcase that one way to boost survivability in space warfare is to reposition “bodyguard satellites” to block access to key orbital slots. AI would be a key asset in accomplishing this concept in a preventive way. Being able to process very large data accumulations to detect hostile action patterns invisible to intelligence analysts, AI offers a new early-warning set of capabilities to decision-makers on Earth.

Horses, dogs, and human warfighters

Mankind as a species has long been fighting in cooperation with other members of the animal kingdom. The cavalry, for instance, for centuries leveraged the synergic warfighting mix of the domesticated horse—Equus ferus caballus—and Homo sapiens. Dogs—Canis lupus familiaris—are another example, as the first species domesticated by our kind and thus long-accustomed to fighting at our side. The role of war dogs is not restricted to history books or ceremonies and parades: a Belgian Malinois took part in the US killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), back in 2019. Another dog of the same breed operated alongside the American Navy Seals in 2011, during Operation Neptune Spear, to kill the mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks, al-Qaeda ringleader Osama bin Ladin.

Scientifically speaking, Homosapiens not only befriended horses and dogs—we neuroscientifically altered these domesticated species’ decision-making algorithms through selective breeding. Scientific experiments showcase that domesticated horses have learned to read human cues to adapt their behaviors. War dogs are the product of key manipulations via human intervention across generations of deliberate breeding. Magnetic resonance imaging studies have proven that through selective breeding over centuries, humans have significantly altered the brains of domestic dog lineages to achieve behavioral specialization, such as scent hunting or guard capabilities and tasks.

The advent of AI requires us to accept that human brains, like those of domesticated animals with military utility, have adapted and will continue to adapt in response to neural stimuli. Combat formations, ranging from mechanized divisions to fighter squadrons, function as the musculoskeletal frame of warfare, while the human decision-making system functions as the brains and neurons. Throughout military history, the brain and the limbs interacted with various ways of communications—be it trumpets of military bands ordering a line march or contemporary tactical data links of modern warfare sharing real-time updates between a fifth-generation aircraft and a frigate’s onboard systems. Homo sapienshas been at the very epicenter of the equation no matter what technological leaps have taken place and will adapt in unpredictable ways to being the slower and more marginal element in decision architecture. Drone warfare has not led to autonomous killer robots but to the rise of a new warrior class: drone operators with massive kill rates, seen both in Putin’s invading army and the Ukrainian military. The rise of hyperwars may produce even further change to the human role, though, as the biological brain races to compete with accelerating decision cycles and nonbiological elements that outpace us. Domesticating AI in warfare will prove more challenging than either dogs or horses, and it is not yet clear what would ensue if we were to design servants quicker and more agile than the masters.

Implications for US-Turkish defense cooperation

The United States and Turkey are not only the two largest militaries within NATO; they have the broadest and most combat-proven drone warfare prowess. Their robotic warfare solutions have been rising quickly in autonomous characteristics and have already reached the human-in-the-loop level in combat operations. In the coming decades, human-out-of-the-loop CONOPS (concepts of operations) will likely emerge for both the US and Turkish militaries. This common feature of defense technology and geopolitics presages a lucrative path for cooperating within the hyperwar environment.

Moreover, Washington and Ankara can enhance their respective collaborations with Ukraine, a nation with the most recent drone warfare experience against the Russian Federation—a direct threat to NATO member states, as officially manifested by the alliance’s incumbent strategic concept. The Ukrainian case extends to utilizing satellite internet connection in the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) aspect of robotic warfare, as well as employing private satellite imagery in target acquisition widely.

Kyiv has already developed close defense ties with the United States and Turkey—even taking part in the latter’s drone proliferation, particularly in the engine segment (for example, Baykar’s Kizilelma). Establishing a trilateral lessons-learned mechanism, which would incorporate defense industries alongside government agencies, would boost such an effort.

Overall, hyperwar seems to be paradigm for future warfare. The United States and Turkey make it possible, and through collaboration perhaps likely, that NATO will retain the upper hand in the hyperwars of the future.

Can Kasapoglu is a non-resident senior fellow at Hudson Institute. Follow him on X @ckasapoglu1.

Explore other issues

The post Hyperwar, artificial intelligence, and Homo sapiens appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The fall of Assad has opened a door. But can Syria seize the moment?

Qutaiba Idlbi, Charles Lister, and Marie Forestier — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 13:00:00 +0000

Download PDF

For more than a decade, Syria’s crisis has caused unimaginable suffering inside the country and a constant stream of strategically significant spillover effects across the Middle East and globally. However, this dynamic changed in late 2024, when armed opposition groups in Syria’s northwest launched a sudden and unprecedentedly sophisticated and disciplined offensive, capturing the city of Aleppo and triggering an implosion of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In the space of ten days, Assad’s rule collapsed like a house of cards, dealing a crippling blow to Iran’s role in Syria and significantly weakening Russia’s influence.

Now, for the first time in many years, Syria has a chance to recover and reintegrate into the international system. If the United States, Europe, Middle Eastern nations, and other stakeholders embrace the right approach, support the right policies, and encourage Syria’s transition to move in the appropriate direction, the world will benefit—and Syrians will find peace. The work of the Syria Strategy Project (SSP) and the policy recommendations in the report “Reimagining Syria: A roadmap for peace and prosperity beyond Assad” present a realistic and holistic vision for realizing that goal.

This report is the result of intensive joint efforts by the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute (MEI), and the European Institute of Peace (EIP), which have been collaborating since March 2024 on the SSP. At its core, the project has involved a sustained process of engagement with subject-matter experts and policymakers in the United States, Europe, and across the Middle East to develop a realistic and holistic strategic vision for sustainably resolving Syria’s crisis. This process, held almost entirely behind closed doors, incorporated Syrian experts, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders at every step.

View the full report

Partner organizations

Explore the project

Mar 15, 2024

Syria Strategy Project

The Atlantic Council, Middle East Institute, and European Institute of Peace collaborate with subject matter experts and policymakers in the US, Europe, and the Middle East to develop a holistic strategy to sustainably forge a pathway to resolving Syria’s crisis.

Sep 5, 2019

Syria Project

Our work on Syria sheds light on the ongoing struggle of Syrians to fulfill their desire for democratic self-governance as the United States and the international community grapple with the aftermath of a devastating civil war, millions of refugees across the Middle East and Europe, and ongoing security and political challenges spilling over Syria’s borders.

Explore the program

Through our Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, the Atlantic Council works with allies and partners in Europe and the wider Middle East to protect US interests, build peace and security, and unlock the human potential of the region.

The post The fall of Assad has opened a door. But can Syria seize the moment? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Dispatch from Kyiv: Ukraine’s daring drone attack gives Trump leverage against Putin

John E. Herbst — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 03:26:24 +0000

KYIV—It was a surprising and devastating attack that some hysterical Russian war bloggers are calling the country’s Pearl Harbor. But the assault on Pearl Harbor occurred when there was no war between Japan and the United States.

Having spent the last four nights in a bomb shelter in Odesa and Kyiv as the Kremlin continues its massive missile and drone attacks on Ukraine’s cities, in a war of aggression that Moscow launched, I can assure you that Ukraine had every right to do what it did on June 1: Strike strategic bombers at five bases across the breadth of Russia.

In contrast to Moscow’s targeting of Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure, Ukraine committed no war crime or breach of international law in destroying those Russian planes, which are regularly used against civilians.

Rather than recalling the Pearl Harbor attack, the complexity and boldness of Ukraine’s “Operation Spiderweb”—which involved smuggling drones into Russian regions from Murmansk to Irkutsk, and launching them against advanced Russian Tu-95 and Tu-22 bombers and A-50 intelligence planes—rivals the now legendary Israeli intelligence operation against Hezbollah fighters’ pagers last year. It has underscored once again that ingenuity along with determination are Ukraine’s strategic advantages in stopping Moscow’s war of aggression.

According to media reports, as many as forty planes have been hit. The Security Service of Ukraine—which planned and executed the operation—claims that the attack destroyed 34 percent of Russia’s strategic bombers capable of carrying cruise missiles. Russian defense sources say that while some planes were on fire as a result of the attack, no real damage was done. Some Russian war bloggers, however, are writing as if the damage was major, and video evidence on social media show the destruction of at least some planes.

Whatever the number of destroyed planes, it is safe to conclude that Moscow will be more cautious about the basing of its remaining bombers, as it was last year when Ukrainian drones began to target Russian military assets. This will further reduce the role of Russian bombers in attacking Ukraine’s front lines, infrastructure, and cities. Of course, Moscow still has plenty of missiles and drones to continue its murderous campaign against civilian targets in Ukraine. But Operation Spiderweb revealed how vulnerable Russia is to unconventional Ukrainian attacks. This has been a major feature of the war evident in Ukraine’s successful 2022 counteroffensive, sweeping of the Russian navy from the central and western Black Sea, and Kursk offensive last year.

It is also important to note that the Tu-95s and Tu-22s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Their loss could weaken the aerial component of Moscow’s nuclear triad, which also has ground (missiles) and sea (submarines) components. Moscow considers the United States its principal adversary. As US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard noted in this year’s national intelligence assessment, Russia, like China, is an adversary of the United States. As with Ukraine’s chewing up of Russia’s conventional military in the war, this operation proves another Ukrainian contribution to US security.

Beyond the battlefield, the impact of this operation is perhaps even more significant. It is a strong counter to the dubious “common wisdom” that the war is moving inevitably in Moscow’s favor. This same assumption explains why Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected numerous proposals for a cease-fire by US President Donald Trump, and why he has refused to send a paper with the Kremlin’s terms for a cease-fire to Ukraine before the June 2 peace talks in Istanbul that he proposed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy correctly described that proposal as a stalling tactic, but against the backdrop of this daring operation finally announced that Ukraine would attend the talks. At this point, Moscow is not talking about boycotting them.

Most observers expect some form of Kremlin response to the Ukrainian attack. While some unhinged Russian war bloggers are calling for the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, it is more likely that Moscow will respond along current operational lines—for example, by conducting even more massive air attacks. While the destruction of the planes is a serious blow against Russia’s air force and Putin’s own prestige, it does not compare in importance to the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the fall of 2022. When it comes to Putin’s calculations in this war, nuclear weapons are principally a rhetorical tool to intimidate Western leaders from backing Ukraine more firmly.

A key question is how the Trump administration will respond to this operation. Several hours after the news broke, the only word from the White House was that Kyiv did not let it know of the operation in advance. The attack occurred just days after the visit of Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal to Ukraine, where they announced that the Senate will move ahead this coming week on their long-awaited bill to impose major additional sanctions against Russia.

Trump has been coming under increasing criticism for his reluctance to put real pressure on Putin for the Russian president’s failure to accept cease-fire terms proposed by Washington and accepted by Kyiv. Will Trump let the sanctions bill—which has eighty-two co-sponsors—pass the Senate? He could call Putin, point to Ukraine’s latest military accomplishment as one more reason to accept Trump’s compromise solution for a cease-fire, and note that political pressure in Washington to take more action against Russia is growing. (The US president can also point to Ukraine’s effective operation, which flummoxed Russian air defenses, as one more reason the United States needs his proposed Golden Dome missile defense system, which Ukraine could be a uniquely capable partner in building.)

Trump could convey the message that if Putin cannot bring himself to accept a cease-fire, significant new sanctions are coming. That would be a clever way to leverage Ukraine’s battlefield success to achieve Trump’s own goal: a durable peace in Ukraine.

John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.

The post Dispatch from Kyiv: Ukraine’s daring drone attack gives Trump leverage against Putin appeared first on Atlantic Council.

New presidents and new nuclear developments test the United States–Republic of Korea alliance

Heather Kearney, Amanda Mortwedt Oh — Fri, 30 May 2025 22:26:48 +0000

Key takeaways

South Korea’s new President, who will be elected on June 3, will have to grapple with many South Koreans’ unease with relying on the United States’ nuclear arsenal for deterring North Korea.
The first and most important test the US-South Korea alliance under Trump and the incoming new South Korean president faces is the continuing growth of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
South Korea’s establishment of a new strategic command outside of the combined US-ROK military structure highlights Seoul’s willingness and capability to take greater responsibility for deterring North Korea, but careful coordination will be required to ensure this strengthens rather than strains the alliance.

In the coming years, the US-South Korea (Republic of Korea, or ROK) alliance is likely to be tested in at least three fundamental ways: by a concerning growth in North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile weapons program; by changes to ROK defense capabilities and structures, including the establishment of ROK Strategic Command (ROKSTRATCOM); and by potential strategy and policy changes under new US and ROK political administrations.

Though the alliance may rise to the challenges of these tests to emerge stronger, these factors could potentially prevent the United States and the Republic of Korea from leveraging the mutual benefits that come from being integrated into a unified wartime command system and the long-standing ideal of a US-ROK bilateral agreement that emphasizes mutual defense. The United States will need to continue to adapt its approach, account for its ally’s perspectives, and plan for the inevitable change to the status quo on the Korean Peninsula.

A second North Korean enrichment facility heightens security concerns in Seoul

The first test for the alliance is the continuing growth of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Current estimates suggest Pyongyang has enough fissile material to build up to 90 nuclear warheads, which generates compelling security concerns that could create tension among two longtime and staunch allies—the United States and the Republic of Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has placed increasing importance on the regime’s nuclear weapons development in the last decade, portraying nuclear weapons as not only defensive but providing the means to win in conflict. In September 2022, North Korea promulgated a new law that laid out a much broader approach to the use of nuclear weapons, including their employment in various conditions.

In 2023, Kim updated Article 58 of the state’s constitution to “ensure the country’s right to existence and development, deter war and protect regional and global peace by rapidly developing nuclear weapons to a higher level.” In September 2024, North Korean state media released photos for the first time of a suspected second uranium enrichment facility and Kim called for a higher number of more capable centrifuges to boost his plans to “exponentially” increase nuclear warhead production. Further, 2025 marks the final year for Kim to achieve the military capability development goals laid out in his five-year plan.

Kim Jong Un touring a uranium enrichment facility at an undisclosed location. Photo released by Korean Central News Agency, September 2024.

North Korea has a nuclear dyad with land- and sea-based nuclear weapons, and it is developing new technologies, including hypersonic gliding flight warheads and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, consistent with Kim’s drive to rapidly develop nuclear weapons and the five-year plan. North Korea’s Strategic Forces have short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), along with 200 road-mobile launchers. North Korea’s continued development of its rail-based ballistic system shows the regime’s efforts to diversify launch platforms, including various vehicles and ground launch pads and potentially submarines, and increase the survivability of its force. While Kim’s ability to strike the US homeland with North Korean ICBMs only grows with additional testing and the introduction and testing of its solid-fuel ICBM in 2023, the regime is also hard at work improving the efficacy of its precision-guided tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed to significantly damage South Korea and US forces on the peninsula, as well as create response challenges for the alliance.

In addition, North Korea is moving forward on its sea-based deterrent. It has ballistic missiles and what it terms ”strategic” (alluding to long range and nuclear capability) cruise missiles for both developmental, missile-firing submarines and underwater platforms. Its tactical nuclear attack submarine, the Hero Kim Kun Ok, is designed to launch tactical nuclear weapons from underwater. In January 2024, the regime tested its underwater unmanned nuclear weapon system, the Haeil-5-23, as a purported response to the trilateral US-ROK-Japan maritime exercise. In January 2025, the regime tested an underwater-to-surface strategic guided cruise missile while also vowing to respond to the United States with the “toughest counteraction.”

Ultimately, North Korea wants to halt US-ROK joint (and multinational) military exercises and to splinter an alliance of seventy-plus-years between the two nations. Its determined and bellicose approach has the potential to highlight the asymmetry of what’s at stake between the United States and the ROK and, if unchecked, sow fear and doubt into the fabric of the alliance.

Would South Korea go nuclear? A shift in ROK defense architecture

The second test of the alliance follows changes in the ROK’s defense architecture and capabilities, including the advent of the ROK Strategic Command (ROKSTRATCOM), which may increase potential areas for divergence among allies even as the changes show the ROK’s increasing capability and willingness to take greater responsibility for its own defense. ROKSTRATCOM’s establishment may be an opportunity rather than just a challenge and it is perhaps more a response to an increasingly serious threat from North Korea than a shortfall in the US-ROK alliance. It nevertheless highlights that South Koreans may not feel US extended deterrence guarantees are sufficient given the growing North Korean threat.

Plans to establish ROKSTRATCOM were underway for over two years by the time of the command’s official establishment on October 1, 2024, yet many Americans either did not pay attention or believe there was a need for such a command on the Korean Peninsula. After all, the United States, South Korea’s strongest ally, has been with the ROK since the Korean War began in 1950. The two countries also have a long-standing Mutual Defense Treaty, signed shortly after the Korean War Armistice. So, for some observers, South Korea’s need for such a command was questionable. The United States already commits to defending South Korea, most visibly with 28,500 military personnel present on the peninsula and contributing to the Combined Forces Command, US Forces Korea, and the United Nations Command. Regular joint exercises and strategic activities, such as a port visit of the USS Kentucky ballistic missile submarine to Busan, also bolster this presence.

The ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) marks its forty-sixth anniversary with a ceremony at Camp Humphreys, Pyeongtaek, November 7, 2024. Photo provided by United States Forces Korea.

Importantly, though, ROKSTRATCOM does not clearly fall under the combined alliance wartime command construct under a bi-national Combined Forces Command that has been in place since 1978. ROKSTRATCOM is instead an independent ROK-controlled command, currently led by ROK Air Force Lieutenant General Jin Young Seung, and it is still under development exactly how this new command will align and coordinate with CFC and other alliance constructs like the bilateral Military Committee.

Markus Garlauskas, Indo-Pacific Security Initiative director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, with Lt. Gen. Jin Young Seung, ROKSTRATCOM commander, at the ROKSTRATCOM headquarters in February 2025. Photo provided by the Atlantic Council

Operationally, ROKSTRATCOM resides under the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving as an integrator of ROK armed forces’ strategic weapons systems from each military branch. In July 2024, a former ROK minister of defense expressed the administration’s vision of the command:

The strategic command will be a unit that leads the development of nuclear and conventional integrated operational concepts and plans and combat development in new areas such as space, cyber, and the electromagnetic spectrum in conjunction with the operation of the ROK-US Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG).

According to a news report citing the South Korean Ministry of National Defense, the command “would also give the orders to subordinate military assets to strike enemy targets or intercept hostile missiles as part of the Kill Chain strategy and the Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation [KMPR] plan.” (See the ministry’s 2022 white paper for more information about the kill chain strategy and the KMPR plan.)

It is more than just command and control that is changing, however. South Korea’s independent strike capabilities are increasing. South Korea unveiled its most powerful conventional weapon, the Hyunmoo-5, referring to it as an “ultra-high-power ballistic missile.” The high-yield Hyunmoo-5 appears to be intended as a ROKSTRATCOM capability, integral to reinforcing ROK messages of an “overwhelming response” to any North Korea nuclear attack. It remains to be seen, however, how the command will contribute these forces to a conflict on the Korean Peninsula—and this calls into question the previously relied upon unified command system.

The establishment of ROKSTRATCOM is a historic event and time will tell if capabilities breed intentions. It appears South Korea is not willing to take the option of having nuclear weapons off the table despite the US nuclear umbrella and extended deterrence commitments. As the ROK continues to grapple with its current and future defense challenges, the United States should take care to be an integral part of this ROK process, thereby ensuring a better understanding of the intentions of allies, enhancing the alliance, and deterring North Korea from strategic attack.

New presidents in Washington and Seoul portend policy changes

The third test involves expected changes by the new Trump administration to US policies and strategies affecting the alliance, along with potential adjustments by the imminent new South Korean administration to its approach toward the alliance and to defense issues more broadly. Coupled with divisive domestic politics in both the United States and South Korea, these developments could potentially open old wounds and create new points of contention within the alliance. As the new US administration begins to set its tone for foreign policy for the rest of its term, many South Koreans seem hopeful, but uncertain. Meanwhile, South Korean media reports and commentaries are examining the implications of rumored US force reductions in Korea and other potential changes to US policy and strategy affecting the alliance as either challenges or opportunities.

South Korea will soon have its own new president, after the martial law declaration by Yoon and his removal from office resulted in elections set for June 3. A new ROK president may well inject more uncertainty into the state of South Korean affairs, which could affect the alliance, as the country works to self-heal from Yoon’s surprising martial law announcement and the subsequent fallout.

Meanwhile, there are lingering questions about whether South Korea will eventually develop its own nuclear weapons. While many Americans empathize with South Korea’s undesirable position, its creation of ROKSTRATCOM and varied calls by ROK officials for nuclear weapons are concerning for US assurance efforts and, potentially, its nonproliferation policy. Would South Korea really go nuclear? Given the tense nuclear-armed neighborhood that surrounds the small country, and North Korea’s continued refusal to give up its nuclear weapons, many ask, “Why not?” Others, however, argue South Korea “cannot” or would “never” do so because it is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). However, the NPT has a get-out-of-jail free card in Article X. According to a 2005 Arms Control Today article by the late arms control experts George Bunn and John B. Rhinelander:

Article X of the NPT provides a “right” to withdraw from the treaty if the withdrawing party “decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this [t]reaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” It also requires that a withdrawing state-party give three months’ notice.

South Korean public discussion of a nuclear latency capability and indigenous nuclear weapons has been growing, with some officials publicly expressing the desire to keep the option open or to actually build nuclear weapons. Most recently, the People Power Party presidential candidate, Kim Moon Soo, announced that, if elected, he would pursue a nuclear latency capability—meaning that South Korea would be much closer to being able to build nuclear weapons on short notice. This indicates South Korea’s unease with relying on the United States as the only nuclear weapons responder to a growing North Korean nuclear arsenal.

Conclusion

These new hurdles—a more capable and threatening nuclear North Korea; a shift in South Korea’s defense architecture, including a unilateral strategic command; and presidential-level political changes—will inevitably strain the alliance, but may also present opportunities. The US-ROK alliance has remained ironclad, with more than seven decades of experience and adaptation, underpinned by a commitment to each other’s mutual defense. Now it is up to both countries to learn from their past while developing new approaches to the changing status quo. No matter who wins the ROK presidential election, the continued strength of the US-ROK alliance matters in the face of threats confronting both the United States and South Korea. Early and in-depth engagement by Washington with the new South Korean president to begin charting a new course for the alliance will ensure the US-ROK alliance emerges even stronger and more equipped to enhance each country’s interests, as well as underpin stability in the region.

About the authors

Heather Kearney is a nonresident fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. She is also a senior Indo-Pacific analyst in the Joint Exercise, Training, and Assessments Directorate at United States Strategic Command. As a senior analyst for risk of strategic deterrence failure, she leads a team dedicated to assessing trends in the environment in order to inform strategic risk assessments.

Amanda Mortwedt Oh is a USSTRATCOM liaison officer in the Office of Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Policy, Strategic Stability, in the Joint Staff J-5 Directorate. She focuses her research on Northeast Asia and strategic deterrence and was most recently a Fall 2024 Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Policy Fellow. She is the previous director of international outreach and development at the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) and has published several articles and reports on North Korea’s prison camps and human rights issues. She is also a lawyer in the US Army Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

Disclaimer: The views presented in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of US Strategic Command, the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Explore the program

The Indo-Pacific Security Initiative (IPSI) informs and shapes the strategies, plans, and policies of the United States and its allies and partners to address the most important rising security challenges in the Indo-Pacific, including China’s growing threat to the international order and North Korea’s destabilizing nuclear weapons advancements. IPSI produces innovative analysis, conducts tabletop exercises, hosts public and private convenings, and engages with US, allied, and partner governments, militaries, media, other key private and public-sector stakeholders, and publics.

The post New presidents and new nuclear developments test the United States–Republic of Korea alliance appeared first on Atlantic Council.

How NATO’s eastern flank is setting the standard for collective defense

Justina Budginaite-Froehly — Fri, 30 May 2025 16:04:21 +0000

“I am glad to be in Vilnius today,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on May 22. “Because it is right here, in Lithuania, where we are taking the defense of NATO’s eastern flank into our own hands.”

Merz was in Vilnius to formally inaugurate the 45^th Armored Brigade in Lithuania, which will embed German combat power at the heart of Baltic defense. Germany will implement a phased deployment—it sent advanced elements in early 2024 and formally activated the brigade on April 1. The brigade is expected to reach full combat readiness by 2027. Once complete, this will offer Lithuania and its neighbors a sustained, high-end deterrent anchored in the NATO framework.

But it’s not just Germany that is helping bolster the defenses of NATO’s strategically exposed eastern flank. The eastern flank countries themselves are implementing concrete measures to overcome Europe’s entrenched defense fragmentation. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—all located along the eastern border of both NATO and the European Union (EU) with mainland Russia, its Kaliningrad exclave, and Belarus—are emerging as leaders in bolstering regional defense integration, the benefits of which could extend throughout Europe. This shift is especially significant amid growing transatlantic tensions and renewed calls from the United States for Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own security and conventional defense.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, these countries have aligned their border protection efforts by integrating their counter-mobility measures. They have initiated the process of cooperatively developing deep-strike capabilities. They have also started the procurement process for German weapon systems, introduced the German defense industry to the region, and will soon host the first-ever permanently deployed German brigade. All these initiatives show that Europe’s defense efforts are well-positioned to grow together and consolidate from the epicenter in the northeast of the continent. By anchoring their defense planning in regional realities, the eastern flank countries are demonstrating that regional coordination, backed by political determination, can transform exposed vulnerabilities into strategic assets that enhance deterrence and operational readiness.

Integrating counter-mobility systems

Faced with growing geostrategic pressure along their borders with Russia and Belarus, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have taken decisive, coordinated steps to reinforce border protection and defense. Increasingly aligned in their strategic approach, these countries are developing integrated fortification systems that form a continuous defensive line along the eastern border of NATO and the EU.

Two major initiatives launched in 2024—the Baltic Defense Line covering Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and Poland’s East Shield—share the common goal of strengthening deterrence and denying adversaries access to NATO and EU territory. These efforts include expanding existing forested areas, deepening drainage ditches, building engineering depots to store physical barriers such as “dragons’ teeth,” “hedgehogs,” “Spanish horse,” and solid concrete road barriers, as well as installing anti-tank landmines and mine-laying equipment. There are also plans for developing reinforcements with drone and anti-drone technologies. The overall goal is to ensure the two defense initiatives’ integrity, especially as they converge at the Suwałki Gap, a security chokepoint and the primary axis for NATO’s land reinforcement to the Baltic states.

Finland’s accession to NATO added 1,340 kilometers to the Alliance’s border with Russia. Unlike the more exposed terrain of the Baltic states and Poland, Finland’s border region is naturally defensive, dominated by forests, lakes, and wetlands, which would complicate a large-scale Russian ground incursion. Accordingly, Finland has chosen not to build physical fortifications along the border.

However, to reinforce deterrence and secure vulnerable segments, Finland aligned itself with the regional consensus by withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. This means the eastern flank countries can jointly deploy and stockpile anti-personnel landmines as a shared border defense tool against Russia. Both Russia and Ukraine have used anti-personnel landmines in Ukraine.

The regional integration of border defense has triggered broader EU interest. Following Baltic and Polish calls for a collective response, the European Council’s conclusions on European defense, released on March 6, recognized the importance of EU border defense. The EU’s White Paper on Defense, published in late March, endorsed the idea of creating an “Eastern Border Shield” and in April, the European Parliament passed a resolution recognizing the East Shield and the Baltic Defense Line as flagship projects for common security. This momentum must now translate into concrete EU support—and funding—for transforming the eastern flank countries’ national efforts into a unified, layered European border defense architecture.

Coordinated development of deep strike capabilities

The Baltic states, Poland, and Finland are also integrating their long-range firepower into a regional deep-strike architecture, which significantly raises the threshold for aggression along the eastern flank of NATO and the EU.

Since Russia launched its full-scale war against Ukraine in 2022, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have each contracted High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) launchers and committed to trilateral cooperation with the United States on HIMARS integration, personnel training, system maintenance, and service. Embedding HIMARS into a joint operational concept will allow the Baltic states to conduct combined live-fire exercises and harmonize sustainment through shared maintenance, training, and logistics chains. Estonia’s six launchers, delivered in April, now reach well beyond four hundred kilometers. Lithuania’s eight launchers, due to arrive by 2026, will achieve a similar reach. Latvia is set to receive six launchers in 2027, which will complete the Baltic deep-strike firewall.

This Baltic cluster is dovetailing with Poland’s even larger “Homar-A” deep-strike program, under which some 486 additional HIMARS variants will be mounted on Polish Jelcz trucks and integrated into Poland’s Topaz command system. Together, Poland and the Baltic states are planning a joint logistics hub to manage munitions stockpiles, spare parts, and forward displacement. They are also planning to exercise joint targeting and coordinate fire support across borders.

Finland has opted to upgrade its M270 multiple-launch rocket systems rather than buy HIMARS. The upgrade, approved in 2023, allows Finnish M270s to fire the same munitions as their Baltic neighbors. This technical alignment transforms Finland’s forces into a seamless fourth pillar of the regional deep-strike ensemble, enabling integrated planning, data‐sharing, and cross-border reinforcement exercises.

By integrating US-provided launchers, coordinated doctrine, shared logistics, and interoperable fire-control standards, the five eastern flank nations are establishing a continuous, multi-tiered long-range fire network that spans from Finland to Poland. This network helps project deterrence and complicate adversary planning, solidifying a new level of collective defense integration on the eastern flank.

Regional consolidation with German weapon systems

The eastern flank countries have also deepened their partnerships with German weapon manufacturers. Lithuania is aligning its force modernization with the German brigade’s forward posture in the Baltics. In December, Lithuania’s defense ministry signed a €950 million contract with for forty-four Leopard 2 A8 main battle tanks—its first indigenous tank battalion—which will arrive through 2030, alongside an expanded fleet of twenty-seven additional Boxer “Vilkas” infantry fighting vehicles, which will arrive by 2029. Finland and Poland likewise use Leopard 2 variants, creating a shared main battle tank backbone across the eastern flank.

In the air defense domain, Estonia and Latvia will each field three IRIS-T surface-launched missile batteries this year, while Lithuania has bolstered its two national advanced surface-to-air missile systems (NASAMS) batteries (initially deployed in 2020) with additional systems due to arrive in 2026. To underpin sustained operations, German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall’s new NATO-standard 155 mm ammunition plant in Lithuania, scheduled to be online by mid-2026, will produce tens of thousands of shells annually, significantly enhancing regional munitions resilience.

In the defense innovation field, Lithuanian laser technology firm Aktyvus Photonics has partnered with German drone manufacturer Quantum Systems, having signed a memorandum of understanding on strategic collaboration in unmanned systems this month. Together, they will codevelop and field-test unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with laser capabilities, aiming to expedite deployment timelines and establish a standard for next-generation, networked unmanned systems in NATO’s eastern defenses.

Beyond procurement, production, and innovation, Lithuania has also positioned itself as a regional arms maintenance hub: Through the establishment of Lithuania Defense Services—a joint venture between Rheinmetall Landsysteme and French-German defense manufacturer KNDS—it provides repair, overhaul, and upgrade services for German vehicle platforms, including Boxer Vilkas IFVs, PzH 2000 howitzers, the Leopard main battle tank family, and tactical logistics vehicles.

Collectively, these deployments, procurements, and industrial partnerships do more than fill capability gaps: They forge a contiguous eastern flank defense ecosystem. By standardizing on German platforms, harmonizing training and logistics, co-locating production and repair facilities, and co-training under unified command structures, Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland, together with Germany, can achieve unprecedented interoperability and strategic depth. These initiatives are transforming NATO’s eastern flank into a seamless, multi-domain bulwark.

Strategic depth through regional alignment

The eastern flank’s transformation from a collection of fragmented national postures into a cohesive, multi-domain defense network exemplifies how sustained regional integration can overcome long-standing capability gaps. By aligning border defense, harmonizing long-range fires, and embedding German heavy armor and sustainment infrastructure, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are creating a continuous belt of deterrence that leverages shared doctrine, logistics, and industry. This holistic approach raises the cost of aggression and sets a new standard for European collective defense: one where interoperability and joint capacity-building replace duplication and dependency, anchoring strategic depth at NATO’s most exposed frontier.

Justina Budginaite-Froehly, PhD, is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center and Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

The post How NATO’s eastern flank is setting the standard for collective defense appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The frontier is the front line: On climate resilience for infrastructure and supplies in Canada’s Arctic

Jeffrey Reynolds, Kristen Taylor — Fri, 30 May 2025 14:49:31 +0000

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s victory in the May 2025 elections provides a clearer picture of Canada’s political future and strategic priorities. During the election campaign, Carney emphasized bolstering defense spending and increasing Canada’s presence, awareness, and infrastructure footprint in the Arctic. As Carney seeks to achieve these stated ends, he will contend with a strategic environment that looks more dangerous for Ottawa than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And he will likely struggle to reconcile the strategic importance of the Arctic with the cost of developing the infrastructure required to secure it. But as the ice retreats, so too do the barriers that once insulated Canada’s Arctic.

The frontier has become the front line.

Canada’s choice is binary: secure its portion of the Arctic or suffer the consequences of foreign powers acting with impunity in and around Canada’s Arctic. Ottawa’s central challenge, therefore, is to harden its Arctic presence with dual-use infrastructure and supply chain resilience while hostile powers increase their influence around the pole.

This task gets more difficult the longer Ottawa dithers because change manifests across many vectors concurrently. The infrastructure and supply chains critical to the region are underdeveloped and ill-suited for the future—and they do not improve with age. Climate change continues to alter the contours of the region, often to Canada’s strategic disadvantage. An ascendant generation of US strategists proclaim that the Canadian Arctic is the “new soft underbelly” of North America. And it is no longer fantasy to suggest that the Arctic is ground zero for the new ‘Great Game’ between the United States, Russia, and China.

The region has been one of strategic contest since 1921, when Joseph Stalin claimed the North Pole for the Soviet Union, a claim re-animated by Moscow in 2015. It may lack the trenches and dragon’s teeth in Europe, or the clashes between fishing vessels and coast guard ships in southeast Asia. But the Arctic is no longer a low-threat, low-force posture environment that can be defended by a couple Coast Guard icebreakers and some Canadian Rangers on snowmobiles.

It is a region of strategic consequence and likely to be more so in the coming decades, which begs the question—why does Canada lag allies and adversaries alike in both the defense and development of its Arctic territory?

The simplistic answer is that Ottawa is torn among competing interests and an inability, or an unwillingness, to marshal the domestic resources necessary to protect its Arctic from a growing cast of players keen to exploit perceived vulnerabilities in pursuit of their interests.

The Atlantic Council delved deeper into Canada’s challenge to bolster infrastructure and supply chain resilience in the region. Research included literature reviews, interviews, and off-the-record conversations with a broad range of government and private-sector stakeholders. Interviews yielded constructive, if passionate, views from respondents who expressed repeatedly how much they want Canada to secure its part of the Arctic and enable its full development.

Analysis revealed that Ottawa knows the region well; the Canadian government has few peers in understanding the Arctic and what is required to right supply chains there. Geological surveys and development plans are completed to a gold standard. Stakeholders know the problem and solution space—and have for decades. But domestic policy, not climate change or geopolitical calculus, is the primary factor influencing strategic decisions for Canada’s north.

Key players (and honorable mentions)

Climate change has made the Arctic accessible. Glacier melting has created new sea routes, extended shipping seasons, and unveiled vast natural resources. But it has also created an opening in the region for strategic contest. Three threat vectors shape the region’s security dynamics for Canada.

Russia

More than half of the Arctic Circle’s population and half its economy are Russian. Russia sits at the end of one of the Arctic’s most accessible regions. Russia is opening old bases and building new infrastructure throughout the region. It holds more than 50 percent of Arctic investment (made between 2017 and 2022), and its military doctrine treats the north as central to economic and national defense. Since 2014, the Kremlin has launched Cold War-style investments in Arctic airfields, radar systems, submarine networks, and year-round basing. Russian military planners are considering anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) domes extending over the Northern Sea Route.

Moscow likely observes that Canadian defense planning remains rooted in an outdated peace dividend mindset—one that grossly underestimates the threat of state-on-state conflict in the Arctic. Canada’s lack of comprehensive undersea surveillance renders its Arctic maritime approaches effectively blind, and its military presence in the region—symbolized by a modest footprint of Canadian Rangers—leaves much to be desired in terms of deterrence or rapid response. Equipment remains outdated, modernization plans languish in bureaucratic limbo, and logistics chains are stretched perilously thin. These gaps create space for Russian forces to maneuver below the threshold of war, exploiting ambiguity and Canada’s limited detection capabilities to assert influence or project force unchallenged.

The Kremlin likes to see how Canada’s strategic dependence on the United States substitutes alliance commitments for genuine sovereign deterrence. Ottawa’s whole-of-government approach—while inclusive in theory—has fragmented decision-making in practice, rendering Canada slow and reactive at a time when speed and coherence are strategic advantages. Indigenous consultation, while legally and morally necessary, remains procedurally rigid and politicized, often becoming a brake on critical national security decisions rather than a channel for partnership and empowerment.

While Russia invests heavily in its Arctic capabilities, Canada’s Arctic capability is stuck in the twentieth century. Surveillance assets are aging, space-based platforms are insufficient, and investment in modern ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) technology remains anemic. Communications remain unreliable across vast regions, exposing both civilian and military systems to disruption. Cyber defenses—especially around critical infrastructure—are poorly funded and unevenly deployed, inviting adversaries to strike via code rather than missile.

China

China considers itself a “near-Arctic power” and its Polar Silk Road links Arctic shipping to its global Belt and Road ambitions. China’s white papers frame the region as a commons to be commercially and scientifically accessed. Icebreaker construction in Chinese shipyards matches the tempo of a nation preparing for permanent presence.

Beijing understands that Canada’s economic infrastructure in the Arctic is brittle. Melting permafrost, seasonal reliance on ice roads, and a near-total absence of deepwater ports make northern logistics vulnerable to both climate and conflict. These choke points offer asymmetric opportunities to disrupt supply chains or sabotage dual-use facilities. China could exploit these vulnerabilities by embedding itself through ostensibly civilian investments in Arctic mining, telecommunications, or transportation infrastructure—investments that are strategic positioning by other means. In such a fragile environment, any hybrid attack or technological failure could sever vital arteries with catastrophic effects.

From China’s vantage point, Canada’s Arctic declarations are noble but hollow—bold in language but weak in execution. For Beijing, which has increased defense spending every year for three decades, Canada’s plan to reach two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense spending by 2030 is symbolic. Procurement remains tangled in inefficiency and overregulation, hampering modernization and undermining operational readiness. Economic pressures, shifting political winds, and lukewarm support for military spending are likely to derail Canada’s commitments before they mature. Moreover, China likely sees Canada’s overreliance on its NATO allies as a strategic liability. The Arctic can be probed or pressured just below NATO’s collective defense thresholds—ensuring ambiguity, diffusing Western resolve, and highlighting Canada’s limited unilateral options.

Manpower shortages, insufficient Arctic basing, and the long-delayed Nanisivik port all point to structural underinvestment in hard infrastructure. These gaps offer Beijing a rich menu of asymmetric opportunities to: subvert Arctic economies through proxy investments; cultivate cultural ties through scholarships, research partnerships, and diplomatic outreach; sabotage digital and physical infrastructure through cyberattacks or dependency entrapments; and sow political dissent by financing Indigenous, environmental, or anti-militarization movements within Canada’s own democratic fabric.

The United States (and others)

For Washington, Canada’s failure to defend its Arctic territory is not merely a function of limited resources, but of deliberate strategic neglect. The refusal to acquire nuclear-powered submarines—essential for year-round under-ice patrols and true sovereignty enforcement—reveals a deeper aversion to the burdens of great power responsibility. While adversaries invest in undersea dominance and dual-use Arctic infrastructure, Ottawa opts for half-measures: diesel patrol submarines that can’t operate under the polar ice, minimal surveillance capabilities, and no permanent military basing north of 60.

The US view is shifting from a posture of “monitor and respond” to one of “prepare and deter.” Pentagon reports no longer downplay the Arctic as a region of strategic importance. Even smaller powers have taken notice. India published its Arctic strategy in 2021, emphasizing scientific diplomacy. Turkey signed the Svalbard Treaty to gain access rights to the Arctic in 2023. France and Germany are also exploring greater footprints in the region.

While the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) Pact with Canada and Finland represents a trilateral effort to rebuild icebreaker capacity and harden the Arctic industrial base, it is not enough. Canada remains trapped in a peacetime posture and mentality—symbolic patrols and seasonal exercises—while the region becomes increasingly contested by powers that are, at best, are neutral to Canada’s concerns and, at worst, openly hostile to them.

This inertia is rooted in a political culture that prioritizes accommodation over assertiveness. Successive governments have deferred to progressive special interest groups whose influence blunts hard security policies. Environmentalist and Indigenous consultations, while important, are often weaponized procedurally to paralyze decisive action. The result is a government debilitated by process, one that speaks of sovereignty but shrinks from the instruments necessary to enforce it. Even modest defense initiatives face resistance if they challenge entrenched activist orthodoxies or require confronting Canada’s internal contradictions. This includes the legal quagmire of provincial and territorial jurisdiction in the North, which Ottawa remains unwilling to override or reform.

Perhaps most damning for Washington is Canada’s lack of strategic coherence. Ottawa provides a strategic framework for the Arctic but fails to dedicate the resources to achieve the objectives contained therein. Policy and strategy without resource commitments are unseriousness ideas. Moreover, Canada’s policies do not form a doctrine of Arctic deterrence, convey no idea on how to mobilize federal will, and fail to weave a unifying narrative that connects Arctic defense to the survival of Canada as a sovereign nation in an increasingly anarchic world.

America cannot—and will not—permit a soft underbelly to fester in a domain as critical as the Arctic. It is not inconceivable for US forces unilaterally securing parts of the Canadian Arctic in the event of a crisis. Such actions, while diplomatically uncomfortable, would be strategically necessary if Canadian gaps remain unaddressed. To be blunt: if pressed and in a fight with Russia or China in the Arctic, the US will almost certainly be “Elbows Up” in defense of North America, even if it offends Canadian sensitivities.

Five “cold kills”

Our research unearthed five factors that contribute to Canada’s Arctic inertia. Each of these “cold kills” continues to impede progress on increasing supply chain and defense resilience.

1. Lacking multipartisan consensus on the region as “ground zero” for a new “Great Game.”

Canada cannot do much in the Arctic if it lacks enduring political will to support and fund dual-use infrastructure over decades. The growing importance of the Arctic for great-power competition underscores the need for politicians, defense planners, local communities, industry partners, and other relevant stakeholders to walk in the same general direction, if not in lockstep. Despite the urgency of this task, no sustained, cross-partisan strategy for Arctic defense exists. Without it, investments, infrastructure development, and operational planning will almost certainly come up short. In 2025, Natural Resources Canada is projected to invest $12.1 million toward climate adaptation projects in the North—which is necessary, but insufficient when compared to similar efforts by other Arctic powers.

Yet, allies offer a contrast. Norway’s Arktis 2030 fund and its defense pledge of 3 percent of GDP underscore a whole-of-society approach. Finland’s NATO entry boosted its participation in Arctic exercises. Sweden utilizes Arctic data to create a stronger and better informed national defense policy. Denmark leverages Greenland’s geostrategic importance in its Arctic defense. While Canada’s Arctic is inaccessible by comparison, it can look at what NATO allies do right in the region and their whole-of-society approaches.

2. Placing too much of the strategic burden on local communities.

The Canadian government continues to place disproportionate responsibility for Arctic security on local communities, revealing a dangerous strategic asymmetry between rhetoric and capability. The Canadian Rangers, though a symbol of national resolve and cultural integration, are not a substitute for a modern, standing military presence. They are lightly armed, part-time volunteers—valuable in their knowledge of the land but structurally unfit to deter or respond to the increasing threats posed by adversarial state actors operating just beyond the line of sight. This over-reliance has created a strategic mirage: Ottawa appears engaged in Arctic defence, but the burden is unfairly borne by those with the fewest resources and the highest exposure.

In effect, Canada’s Arctic is not treated as an equal part of Confederation, but as a frontier outpost whose primary function is surveillance and symbolic sovereignty. The political imagination to raise Arctic communities to the standard of living of rural southern Canada is absent. There is no serious nation-building project underway—no long-term vision to tie infrastructure, broadband, energy, healthcare, and education in the North to the national grid of opportunity.

The region is home to significant deposits of iron ore, gold, diamonds, and rare earth elements. The Mary River Mine on Baffin Island is one of the world’s richest reserves of high-grade iron ore, producing millions of tons annually. Similarly, the Hope Bay and Meliadine gold mines contribute substantially to Canada’s mineral output. These resources are critical for economic development and for national security, given their importance in defense manufacturing and technology. Yet, the extraction and transportation of these resources are hampered by limited infrastructure that eludes further development due to lack of coordination and investment at all levels of government. While the Yukon Security Advisory Council can be a model for shared governance federal, territorial, and Indigenous jurisdictions overlap without coherent authority. The result is a bureaucratic bottleneck that limits response agility and accountability, especially in scenarios involving mass casualty events or foreign incursions below the threshold of war.

3. Misunderstanding the Arctic as a land- or maritime-centric domain, instead of a multidomain one.

Canada’s Arctic strategy remains anchored in a legacy mindset—fixated on land and maritime domains—while the battlespace has already expanded far beyond the ice and tundra. The Canadian Arctic is a multi-domain operating environment in the most rigorous sense: a crucible where air, sea, land, space, and cyberspace domains converge. Focusing primarily on ground mobility or maritime choke points is antiquated.

In an era defined by precision-guided conflict, gray zone incursions, and orbital competition, the North requires integrated deterrence across all domains. The space domain is already decisive; Russia and China have launched dual-use satellites optimized for polar reconnaissance, while Canada’s surveillance constellation remains limited and aging. Cyberspace, too, is an active front. Persistent foreign probing of Canada’s critical Arctic infrastructure—from power grids to fiber lines—underscores the need for zero-trust architectures and sovereign cyber capacity hardened against both disinformation and sabotage. The air domain, often overshadowed, remains underutilized despite offering cost-effective ISR opportunities via high-altitude, long-endurance drones and balloon-based sensors that can supplement space assets in degraded environments.

Canada must approach the Arctic as a multi-domain region. Infrastructure nodes at Iqaluit, Yellowknife, and Inuvik must be conceived not as mere logistics hubs, but as permanent and staffed bases in a broader multi-domain lattice of deterrence. Airfields should be hardened, satellites shielded, networks encrypted, and data fused in real time. The resilience and infrastructure footprint must be multi-domain: ISR in orbit, radar on ice, seaborne logistics hubs, and hardened cyber networks. It might even be cheaper to establish and easier to maintain air-based sensors to augment space-based sensors, such as high-altitude, long-endurance drones and high-altitude balloons.

4. Missing the point that infrastructure spending enables both military and local resilience.

Canada’s policy frameworks fail to grasp a foundational truth: infrastructure is not ancillary to defence; it is defence. Roads, railways, hospitals, and power stations in the Arctic are bulwarks of resilience and lifelines to national unity. The harsh environment demands more than token outposts; it demands permanence that begins with infrastructure designed for both civilian and military pursuits.

Canada’s persistent underinvestment in Arctic infrastructure can be attributed largely to sticker shock. Building in the north is expensive at the outset, but those initial costs conceal long-term value. Roads, railways, and ports that facilitate the movement of Canadian forces and provide necessary infrastructure for local communities also enhance NATO mobility and resilience.

The Grays Bay Road and Port Project is unlikely to open before 2035. Until then, the Port of Churchill remains Canada’s only Arctic deepwater port for more than 106,000 miles of coastline—and even it is more than 800 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle. The overland situation is equally stark. The long-considered Mackenzie Valley Highway remains unbuilt. Meant to replace unreliable winter roads and connect remote Arctic communities, the highway should be considered as a defense artery.

Moreover, the North needs cyber towers as much as radar domes; fibre optic cables as much as sonar arrays. Schools and post-secondary institutions—anchored by Arctic research centres—should be erected alongside hardened military installations to attract families, not just forces. In Alaska, the dual-use success of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport provides a model: educational and aerospace ecosystems aligned with the broader security posture of the United States.

Still, there are signs of acceleration. The Department of National Defence has committed $230 million to extend the main runway at Inuvik Airport. The upgrades include modern lighting and arrestor systems—investments tailored for sustained military operations and a rare example of a concrete commitment in a domain often shaped by abstraction. Canada should build Arctic spaceports and drone launch facilities for persistent surveillance and communications dominance—assets that would likely qualify as defence expenditures under a broadened NATO definition. And that definition is evolving. With calls to raise the alliance-wide benchmark to five percent of GDP, the line between civil and military investment will blur. Forward-thinking allies are already redefining defence to include national resilience, critical infrastructure, and technological redundancy.

5. Failing to call out the need to achieve A2/AD capability.

Canada’s current Arctic strategy is more performative than purposeful. It remains anchored in rituals of presence rather than a doctrine of deterrence. The reasons are structural and cultural: A2/AD sounds too aggressive for a nation wedded to peacekeeping identity and constrained by intergovernmental jurisdictional frictions. But if Canada is to hold the Arctic, it must defend it—not merely inhabit it. That demands something Canada has never attempted: a comprehensive anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy adapted for the circumpolar battlespace.

A2/AD refers to the deployment of integrated capabilities that prevent an adversary from operating freely within a region. This includes long-range fires, persistent surveillance, advanced radar, cyber denial tools, hardened command-and-control infrastructure, and air and maritime denial platforms. Canada does not mention A2/AD in its Arctic lexicon because it fears what it implies: that the North is no longer a sanctuary but a frontier. Building an Arctic A2/AD network would require political will, sustained investment, and a strategic mindset that accepts confrontation as a precondition for sovereignty. It would also provoke diplomatic risk—Russia would label such a move provocative, and China would test the perimeter with gray-zone maneuvers masked as scientific exploration or commercial navigation. Yet the absence of such a posture risks far greater cost: a hollow sovereignty, subject to erosion by increments.

Investments in some areas do not amount to A2/AD. True, Canada’s $38.6-billion commitment over twenty years to modernize NORAD is substantial. If fully implemented, this would be the largest reinvestment in continental defense since the early Cold War. Arctic over-the-horizon radar systems will track threats from the US-Canada border to the Arctic Circle. A more powerful polar variant will extend coverage into the Arctic archipelago and beyond. Crossbow—a classified network of advanced sensors—will supplement these systems with real-time precision. And the Defence Enhanced Surveillance for Space (DESSP) project will allow space-based tracking of adversary launch and maneuver capabilities. Canada has partnered with Australia on a next-generation Arctic early-warning detection system. But even these investments are insufficient; they do not achieve A2/AD in the Arctic. Canada has ISR blind spots, insufficient logistical depth, and infrastructure degraded by thawing permafrost. RADARSAT’s capabilities are aging; the Northwest Passage is functionally unmonitored. There is no cruise missile defense layer.

A Canadian A2/AD architecture would extend ISR reach from geostationary orbit to the ocean floor. At its core: Over-the-Horizon Radar (AOTHR), high-altitude drones, and advanced satellite constellations fused via a hardened C4ISR backbone. Any credible A2/AD structure must project deterrence not only northward but outward via NORAD, integrating seamlessly with allied efforts across the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the European High North.

Challenge and opportunity

We recommend the following six steps to shape decision-making vis-à-vis Canada’s Arctic. Addressing each of them is necessary for more resilient supply chains and robust infrastructure for defense of the Canadian Arctic.

1. Achieve enduring domestic political consensus.

Without sustained, bipartisan consensus on the strategic value of the Arctic, Canada’s northern policy will remain fragmented, underfunded, and vulnerable to reversal.

Canada should establish a nonpartisan Arctic Strategy Council, drawing on members from federal, provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments, as well as the private sector. This council could be modeled loosely on the United Kingdom’s National Security Council, with a standing mandate to oversee and report on Arctic development milestones.

To correct course, Parliament should adopt a minimum percentage of GDP for Arctic infrastructure and defense investments—similar to how NATO’s 2-percent defense spending benchmark frames national priorities. A 0.5-percent GDP floor specifically earmarked for Arctic readiness would send a powerful signal to allies, adversaries, and Canadians alike.

2. Build permanent bases and infrastructure.

Sovereignty requires presence. Canada cannot assert command over its northern territory while maintaining a transient, seasonal military posture.

Canada must develop at least two permanent Arctic bases by 2035 and reinforce the air infrastructures in Yellowknife. These installations should support multi-domain enablers: ground forces, drone squadrons, ISR satellites, and cyber defense detachments. One proposed location is Resolute Bay in Nunavut—a strategic logistics point halfway through the Northwest Passage. Another is Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, where the Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk Highway provides ground access to the Beaufort Sea.

Canada need not sacrifice environmental stewardship to bolster its dual-use infrastructure in the region. On the contrary, the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) offers a way to meet energy needs in a sustainable and flexible manner. These compact, deployable energy systems would enable off-grid installations to power radar stations, bases, and airstrips—allowing the Canadian Armed Forces to operate autonomously across a vast and power-starved frontier.

Canada can and should discover best practices in other nations and adopt to the fullest extent possible. The Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy is training a new generation in clean energy implementation, building the intellectual and technical foundation for sustainable Arctic energy systems. It is one example of innovation that can help make strides in the Arctic.

3. Reorient superclusters toward strategic innovation.

Canada’s innovation ecosystem is misaligned with its strategic realities.

To adapt, Canada must integrate Arctic operational challenges into supercluster mandates. The focus of these superclusters has strayed too far from core security imperatives, and redirecting their mandate toward the defense and security sector could allow Canada to reanimate its atrophied defense industrial base, stimulate Indigenous research and development, and provide a platform for strategic innovation drawn from academic and private-sector talent.

The Global Innovation Cluster for Advanced Manufacturing could sponsor development of modular Arctic housing for deployed forces. The Digital Technology Cluster could support remote communications networks hardened against magnetic interference. And the Protein Industries Cluster could help devise shelf-stable, high-calorie rations adapted to extreme environments.

Canada should establish a national challenge prize—modeled on the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Grand Challenge—to spur innovation in climate-resilient infrastructure, Arctic mobility, and remote power generation. Such efforts should be coordinated by a Defence Innovation Agency akin to the United Kingdom’s Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), ensuring alignment between technological output and operational need.

4. Integrate civil-military infrastructure.

Canada must adopt a whole-of-society approach to Arctic logistics—one that erases the line between civilian and military use.

Every kilometer of highway, every meter of runway, and every watt of power grid must serve dual purposes. Similarly, the Grays Bay Road and Port Project, which aims to connect the rich mineral fields of western Nunavut with the Northwest Passage, must be prioritized for its economic benefits and geopolitical value. Its completion would give Canada a second deepwater Arctic port—an essential node for resupply, power projection, and emergency response.

Meanwhile, the feasibility of Arctic spaceports must be considered thoughtfully. With global competition accelerating in polar orbit surveillance, Canada’s geography is a latent advantage. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are prime candidates for launching satellites into sun-synchronous and polar orbits, a domain critical for ISR.

5. Accelerate NORAD modernization and ISR integration.

Canada must modernize its Arctic surveillance and early-warning capabilities through the renewal of NORAD and deep integration of orbital, aerial, and terrestrial ISR platforms.

Canada must move decisively to modernize its contributions to NORAD and integrate a layered, multi-domain ISR architecture that meets the threats of the 21st century. The existing North Warning System (NWS)—a relic of the Cold War—is functionally obsolete. It is increasingly vulnerable to kinetic destruction, electronic warfare, and deception by adversaries leveraging hypersonic, low-flying, and space-enabled strike platforms. While Canada has acknowledged this through its stated commitment to over-the-horizon radar (OTHR) and new space-based capabilities, progress has been halting, piecemeal, and under-resourced.

Canada should fast-track its involvement in key pillars of NORAD modernization alongside the United States by:

Over-the-Horizon Radar (OTHR): Advance procurement and installation of Arctic-facing OTHR systems based in Labrador and Nunavut to create a persistent early-warning envelope stretching across the polar approaches. These systems must be hardened against electromagnetic disruption and integrated into NORAD’s command-and-control nodes in real time.
Ballistic Missile Defence and the Golden Dome: Canada must shed outdated policy inhibitions and join the continental Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) architecture. A Canadian contribution to a “Golden Dome” over North America—built on Aegis Ashore components, ship-based interceptors, and ground-based midcourse defence systems—would reinforce deterrence and mitigate the strategic vacuum currently inviting adversary escalation. Participation in the US Missile Defense Review and integration into layered BMD command structures should begin immediately.
Space and High-Altitude ISR: The integration of RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) assets with Gray Jay microsatellites must be complemented by investment in high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) UAVs, stratospheric balloons, and commercial space partnerships. Persistent polar orbit surveillance is not a luxury—it is the sinew of a sovereign Canadian deterrent.

A modern NORAD without a full Canadian partner is a NORAD weakened in scope, credibility, and political cohesion. In an age of hypersonics, space militarization, and AI-driven surveillance, Canada’s northern shield must be not just symbolic but steel-wrought—an active, intelligent barrier underpinned by the best minds and machines the alliance can field. The window to shape this future is closing fast. Canada must step forward now, not as a follower, but as a co-architect of North America’s defence.

6. Integrate the Arctic with broader national and allied defense postures.

Canada’s Arctic strategy must not be treated in isolation.

Canada must integrate its Arctic strategy into a broader, assertive national defence posture—one that acknowledges the indivisibility of Canadian sovereignty and its responsibilities as a G7 power. The Arctic is not a separate theatre, but the forward glacis of the North American fortress. What begins as radar coverage over Baffin Bay ends in deterrence posture from Vilnius to the Taiwan Strait. Canadian defence policy must therefore harmonize Arctic readiness with strategic power projection abroad, ensuring the nation can respond decisively to threats—whether they emerge from the Beaufort Sea, the Black Sea, or the South China Sea.

The Arctic remains critical—but it is not Canada’s only defence priority. A myopic focus on the North risks undermining broader global responsibilities. Canada must project credible force across multiple domains and theatres. That means integrating Arctic surveillance—through over-the-horizon radar, low Earth orbit satellite constellations, and AI-driven ISR—directly into NORAD’s early warning lattice. These capabilities must be interoperable with US Northern Command, NATO’s Arctic flank, and allied sensors in the Indo-Pacific. Surveillance is not enough; it must be paired with striking power and forward basing.

Strategic mobility and offensive reach are essential. Arctic airbases must be upgraded to sustain F-35 squadrons year-round, with rapid deployment capabilities for long-range precision fires and mobile expeditionary forces. Arctic-class naval platforms should anchor presence and power projection into contested waters, with the logistical depth to pivot between the Arctic archipelago and Pacific choke points. Canadian-built UAVs and high-altitude drones should patrol both the Northwest Passage and Western Pacific, forming a twin-hemisphere presence. Above all, Canada must act as a sovereign Arctic nation capable of defending its territory, while remaining a credible contributor to the rules-based international order. The Arctic is the crucible, but Canada’s responsibilities—and its enemies—do not stop at the pole.

Canada’s Arctic infrastructure and supply chain resilience are foundational components to its basic expression of sovereignty. But the future of the Arctic belongs to those who show up first and endure longest. The question is not whether Canada can afford Arctic sovereignty, but whether it can afford its absence.

About the authors

Jeff Reynolds is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Kristen Taylor is an assistant director with the Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible by the generous support of the Canada Mobilizing Insights in Defense and Security (MINDS) program.

Explore the program

The post The frontier is the front line: On climate resilience for infrastructure and supplies in Canada’s Arctic appeared first on Atlantic Council.

UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity

Peter Dickinson — Thu, 29 May 2025 21:46:50 +0000

Russia is guilty of committing crimes against humanity in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region, according to a new report by the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. The report comes following an extensive investigation into a campaign of Russian drone strikes on Ukrainian civilians over a ten-month period beginning in July 2024, with the probe focusing on an area of southern Ukraine stretching more than 100 kilometers along the right bank of the Dnipro River around the city of Kherson.

Members of the UN Commission determined that Russia was engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians and concluded that the drone attacks were “widespread, systematic, and conducted as part of a coordinated state policy.” The report detailed how civilians were targeted “in various circumstances, mainly when they were outdoors, both on foot or while using any type of vehicles,” and noted that on a number of occasions ambulances had been struck by drones in an apparent bid to prevent them from reaching victims and providing vital medical assistance.

During the ten-month period covered by the United Nations probe, Russian drones killed almost 150 Ukrainian civilians in and around Kherson, while leaving hundreds more injured. The constant threat of attack has created a pervasive climate of fear throughout the region, with people afraid to leave their homes. Terrified locals say they feel hunted and refer to the drone attacks as a “human safari.”

In addition to daily drone strikes, Russia has sought to maximize the psychological pressure on residents of the Kherson region via social media channels. UN investigators reported that video footage of drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians is regularly disseminated on Russian Telegram channels, some of which have thousands of subscribers. This video footage shows drone strikes along with the resulting deaths and destruction in the style of video games, often accompanied by background music. Meanwhile, menacing messages posted on Telegram call on Ukrainians to flee the region. “Get out of the city before the leaves fall, you who are destined to die,” read one message quoted in the UN report.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

This is not the first time UN investigators have accused Russia of committing crimes against humanity in Ukraine. A March 2025 UN report reached a similar conclusion regarding the Kremlin’s large-scale program of detentions and deportations targeting Ukrainians living under Russian occupation. “The evidence gathered led the Commission to conclude that the enforced disappearances against civilians were perpetrated pursuant to a coordinated state policy and amount to crimes against humanity,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued a number of arrest warrants for senior Russian officials in relation to alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine including the targeted bombing of civilians and critical civilian infrastructure. The most high-profile ICC arrest warrant is for Vladimir Putin himself, who is wanted for his alleged involvement in the mass abduction of Ukrainian children.

At least 20,000 Ukrainian children are believed to have been kidnapped since the start of the full-scale invasion and taken to Russia, where they are subjected to indoctrination to rob them of their Ukrainian heritage and impose a Russian national identity. The nature and scale of these mass abductions may qualify as an act of genocide according to the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia’s deadly “human safari” drone campaign against the civilian population in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region is part of the Kremlin’s strategy to make the area unlivable. The city of Kherson was occupied by the advancing Russian army during the first days of the full-scale invasion and was officially annexed by Russia in September 2022. However, Kherson and the surrounding area were liberated by the Ukrainian military soon after. The scenes of joy that accompanied the liberation of Kherson were deeply humiliating for Putin, who had personally proclaimed the city to be “forever” Russian just weeks earlier.

This setback forced Putin’s invading army to retreat across the Dnipro River, creating a major physical obstacle for the Russian invasion and limiting the occupied zone of Ukraine to the eastern half of the country. Nevertheless, Moscow continues to insist that Kherson and the surrounding region are now part of the Russian Federation and must be handed over within the framework of a future peace deal.

Ukraine has completely ruled out any such concessions. This is hardly surprising. While some temporary territorial compromises may prove possible during peace negotiations, Ukraine’s stance on Kherson is unlikely to change. After all, allowing the renewed Russian occupation of Kherson would be suicidal for Kyiv. It would present Russia with a priceless foothold across the Dnipro River that could be used as a gateway to seize Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and complete the conquest of the country.

For now, Russia appears to have little chance of seizing Kherson militarily or of acquiring the city at the negotiating table. Instead, Moscow seems to be intent on terrorizing local residents and forcing them to flee. Putin claims that the population of the Kherson region are Russians, but he has no qualms about his soldiers using drones to hunt and kill them mercilessly. This tells you all you need to know about Putin’s cynical posturing as the protector of the Russian people in Ukraine.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

The Israeli public square is a bubbling cauldron, with multiple challenges—foreign and domestic—negatively impacting the prospects of Netanyahu’s majority. His government has demonstrated remarkable resilience over these past twenty months of multifront warfare, rebounding relatively quickly after October 7, 2023, to put Israel’s enemies (including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) on the defensive. However, the pressing need to make strategic decisions is exposing fissures that now threaten the stability of Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Netanyahu’s next moves on Gaza and Iran—two theaters of operation where he appears increasingly misaligned with the Trump administration—could exacerbate those pressures, compelling him to choose between the support of the United States and that of his key coalition partners. More immediately, a potential revolt within the ranks of his government, whose ultra-Orthodox members have issued an ultimatum that they will bolt unless their demands for a military draft exemption are met next week, could create a cascade that triggers early elections. Adding to this volatility, Netanyahu’s cross-examination by the prosecution in his corruption trials will begin next week.

2. How do current divisions compare with pre-October 7 divisions in Israeli politics?

The horrors of October 7 had a chilling effect on the Israeli population, instantly sidelining the disputes—most prominent among them, issues relating to plans for an overhaul of the judiciary—that had paralyzed the country, with precedence shifting to the critical functions of national defense and rehabilitation. Israelis mobilized to meet those tasks, with civil society often filling vacuums in service left by a crippled bureaucracy.

With the passage of time, however, as many crises have since been downgraded or become routine, a “new normal” has created space for pre-October 7 divisions to resurge with a vengeance. This has been most evident in the resumption of divisive government initiatives to circumscribe the mandate of the courts and to assert absolute control over senior appointments. After more than eighteen months of combat, many in Israel believe that when Israelis do ultimately return to the polls, a fault line will be apparent. On one side will be those who have contributed tangibly to the war effort, with many spending hundreds of days on Israel Defense Force reserve duty. On the other side will be those who have evaded such responsibilities.

3. What does this mean for Netanyahu’s government?

In this state of affairs, an embattled Netanyahu is maneuvering to keep his coalition afloat, requiring him to keep its various components satisfied—notwithstanding assessments that most of them have no viable alternative to his leadership. To that end, the prime minister has rejected all solutions for Gaza that would enable Hamas to remain in the territory and, in the interim, to have a hand in administering the distribution of humanitarian aid. Netanyahu’s support for a lenient conscription bill fits into this category as well.

The success of his juggling act is far from guaranteed, however. His government has faced growing pushback from the international community—including, but not limited to, arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court; consideration of targeted sanctions by the United Kingdom, France, and Canada; and a review of the European Union’s association agreement with Israel. This has compounded the stakes of his gambit, possibly exacting an untenable cost for Israel that could encourage a shift in course.

4. What does this mean for US-Israel relations?

Mounting criticism from many of Israel’s traditional friends has only heightened its reliance on Washington. Not only does the United States continue to provide the overwhelming bulk of diplomatic and military assistance afforded to Israel, but Trump administration officials are also playing the lead role in ongoing mediation with Israel’s adversaries. Reportedly, however, Netanyahu has been flustered by a series of events that suggest that Trump’s objectives could actually imperil Israel’s situation.

Emerging details of negotiations that Steve Witkoff, the Trump’s Middle East envoy, has been conducting with Hamas and Iran have been a cause of concern in Jerusalem. Similar consternation was manifest when an end to US hostilities with the Houthis exempted Israel, and when the United States extended its embrace to the new Syrian regime. Netanyahu has repeatedly dispatched messengers to present Israel’s case before administration principals, but the differences between their approaches are unmistakable and could spark a wider breach in the bilateral relationship at an extremely precarious juncture.

5. How might this impact what comes next in the war?

The United States holds most of the cards in this scenario, as well as the agency to deploy them. If Witkoff produces a deal with Hamas that meets Trump’s minimum expectations, Netanyahu will have little choice but to overcome his reservations and accept its terms—and hope that he can persuade enough of his coalition to do likewise. The other, more dangerous option would be to risk running afoul of the White House and being subjected to a similar Oval Office reception as the presidents of Ukraine and South Africa, something which would broadcast Israel’s new vulnerability to the world.

Netanyahu is walking on even more fragile eggshells regarding Iran. Trump has stated that it “would be inappropriate” for Israel to attack Iran “right now because we’re very close to a solution.” The possibility of just such a strike—especially if Israel were to determine that Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon was imminent and unimpeded—cannot be ruled out unequivocally. In that event, however, and in its aftermath, a rupture with Trump could have disastrous consequences for Israel.

Shalom Lipner is a nonresident senior fellow for Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council. From 1990 to 2016, he served seven consecutive premiers at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem.

The post Five questions (and expert answers) on the state of the Netanyahu government appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Judicial reform must be at the heart of Ukraine’s postwar recovery

Oleksandr Vasiuk — Thu, 29 May 2025 19:22:49 +0000

Whenever the topic of Ukraine’s reconstruction arises, most people tend to think of physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, homes, and hospitals. But real national recovery does not start with bricks and concrete. It begins with trust. And there is no better test of trustworthiness than the rule of law.

Ukraine is currently fighting for national survival against Russia’s ongoing invasion. Once this battle is won, the most important challenge facing the country will be judicial reform. If Ukraine is to emerge in the postwar years as a stable and prosperous European democracy, the process of recovery and renewal must be based on the firm foundations of a strong justice system. This is not a mere slogan; it is an absolute necessity.

Judicial reform is the key to the country’s entire future economic development. Investors will not come to Ukraine if contracts cannot be enforced or if property rights can be bought and sold through corruption. That is the message Ukraine’s international partners have been repeating consistently for many years. With the massive task of postwar rebuilding looming on the horizon, this message is now arguably truer than ever.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Once the war ends, Ukraine can expect to receive unprecedented international support as foreign governments seek to participate in what promises to be Europe’s largest reconstruction initiative since the years following World War II. While donor funding from partner countries is likely to be very significant, this will not be nearly enough to cover the estimated rebuilding price tag of around half a trillion US dollars. Instead, much of this money must come from the private sector. However, unless Ukraine has a transparent, reliable, and efficient justice system, private capital will stay away.

If Ukraine hopes to become a success story, it needs courts that can settle disputes fairly, whatever the issue. If legal cases are tainted by bias or drag on for years, this will serve as a major red flag to all potential investors. For this reason, Ukraine’s courts should be recognized as a key element of the country’s infrastructure that is every bit as vital to national recovery as roads or power lines. After all, the justice system serves as the legal framework that makes it possible to build everything else.

Eurasia Center events

Senior Fellow, GeoStrategy Initiative

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Despite the ongoing war, Ukraine has made real progress in recent years toward meaningful judicial reform. This has included the reform of key institutions like the High Court of Justice, along with the launch of new processes to improve the selection of Constitutional Court judges. It is now crucial to build on this momentum.

Judicial reform must be deep, deliberate, and closely tied to Ukraine’s European future. With this in mind, it is important to maintain the current dialogue with the Venice Commission and use its recommendations to shape genuine change. One of the most effective tools to help achieve this change is the participation of international experts. Their role is not to control the process, but rather to help ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability.

As Ukraine looks to create the conditions for national reconstruction, one judicial reform initiative currently being backed by the Ukrainian parliament is the creation of specialized courts to handle issues like land rights and construction disputes. These courts could help speed up vital cases and take pressure off the existing judicial system.

Work is also continuing toward greater digitalization within the justice system, from electronic courts to online case tracking. Much more can be done in this direction. Other tech savvy countries such as Estonia and Singapore are currently leading the way in digital justice. Ukraine can build something just as bold using tools like blockchain and AI. The expanded use of technology can improve the efficiency of Ukraine’s courts, while also boosting trust levels and leading to greater transparency.

Creating a fully functioning and internationally credible justice system is the necessary starting point for everything else Ukrainians want to achieve, from economic strength and prosperity to the rule of law and a greater sense of national security. It can encourage investors to bet on Ukraine, and can help persuade Ukrainians currently living abroad to return home. Ultimately, judicial reform can serve as a national anchor confirming Ukraine’s place in the heart of Europe.

Amid the horror and the trauma of Russia’s ongoing invasion, Ukrainians now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve transformational change in the country’s justice system. We must not miss this chance.

Oleksandr Vasiuk is a member of the Ukrainian parliament for the Servant of the People party and head of the Ukraine-USA Strategic Partnership cross-party association.

Staff

Andrew A. Michta

GeoStrategy Initiative Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Central Europe Eastern Europe

The post Michta in 19FortyFive, RealClearDefense, and RealClearWorld on Putin’s strategic objectives in Ukraine appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Welcome to the long war: Why a Ukraine deal was never realistic

Brian Whitmore — Thu, 29 May 2025 19:10:44 +0000

This war will be decided on the battlefield.

Four months of chaotic shuttle diplomacy aimed at reaching a cease-fire in Ukraine, multiple phone calls between US President Donald Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin, repeated US attempts to pressure, browbeat, and bully Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into concessions, have all yielded exactly nothing.

Which is not in the least bit surprising. Because there is no deal to be had with Russia on Ukraine. There never has been, and there never will be.

There is simply no magic formula, no concession, and no grand bargain that would satisfy the Kremlin’s maximalist and eliminationist goals. Moscow wants to end Ukraine’s sovereignty, nationhood, and statehood. Ukraine wants to continue to exist as an independent sovereign state. Given this, no compromise is possible. Any Kabuki negotiations or Potemkin cease-fire would be meaningless and treated by the Kremlin as nothing more than a strategic pause and an opportunity for sanctions relief.

“Russian imperialism will not be neutralized by negotiations, compromises, or concessions,” Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies and an associate professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, wrote on May 22.

Following his latest call with Trump, Putin said he wanted any settlement to address what he called the “root causes of the crisis.” That choice of phrase was no accident. The Kremlin leader used a similar formulation when addressing the issue of ending the war during a joint press conference with Belarusian strongman Alyaksandr Lukashenka in March.

Putin’s repeated use of the term “root cause” is a tell. For the Kremlin leader, the root cause of the war is the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state, which he has long seen as anathema. At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Putin made this clear when he told then US President George W. Bush that “Ukraine is not even a state.” Putin has also repeatedly referred to Ukraine as “little Russia,” a Tsarist-era term to describe Ukrainian lands.

For Putin and the Kremlin elite, Russian colonial dominance of Ukraine is an ideological issue that is not subject to negotiation. The Kremlin cannot be persuaded, it can only be defeated.

Russia’s game: decouple the war from relations with Washington

If anyone doubts Russia’s intentions, then recent remarks by Vladimir Medinsky, one of Putin’s court ideologists and the Kremlin’s chief representative at recent talks in Istanbul, should put them to rest. “Russia,” Medinsky told the Ukrainian delegation, “is prepared to fight forever.” He added, in reference to the Northern War of 1700-1721, which elevated Russia to the status of an empire, “we fought Sweden for twenty-one years. How long are you ready to fight?”

But with the front line largely static and Russia making miniscule gains with high casualties, forever may turn out to be a very long time and have a very steep cost.

According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in the first four months of 2025, Russia advanced just 1,627 square kilometers on the front in eastern Ukraine while suffering 160,600 casualties. That’s a staggeringly high ninety-nine casualties for every square kilometer of territory. ISW also estimates that “at this rate of advance, it would take Russian forces approximately 3.9 years to seize the remainder of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts,” the four regions Putin has claimed to have annexed. Moreover, according to ISW, it would take nearly a century to seize all of Ukraine save its Western border regions at a cost of nearly fifty million casualties—which is roughly one third Russia’s current population.

The economics of the war are also not trending in Moscow’s favor. As Charles Lichfield, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center wrote in February, “while Moscow has found ways to mitigate the impact of [Western sanctions], growing deficits, unsustainable subsidies, and the rising cost of debt servicing” are putting severe strain on the Russian economy.

Additionally, a widely circulated report by Craig Kennedy of Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies suggests that the “surprising resilience” that the media and analysts have been seeing in the Russian economy is largely a mirage. According to Kennedy’s research, published earlier this year, the war is largely being financed by concessionary off-the-books loans to defense contractors at well below market interest rates. Simply put, this is not sustainable over the long term.

Given this, the Kremlin’s goal vis-à-vis the United States is to decouple the war from Russia-US relations, normalize relations between Moscow and Washington, and get sanctions relief. In a speech in late February, Putin said that Moscow “would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies” to secure rare-earth-minerals deals. Putin added that lifting sanctions could lead to a profitable new economic relationship between the United States and Russia, particularly in the energy sector.

Putin, of course, wants an economic rapprochement without ending his quest to conquer Ukraine. Russia has continued to pound Ukrainian cities with aerial assaults, resulting in mass civilian casualties even as he seeks to entice Washington economically.

And for his part, Trump appears open to the idea. Following his most recent call with Putin, the US president indicated a desire to establish normal economic relations with Moscow. This would be a grave error, as it would throw Putin a lifeline to continue his war of aggression.

Fortunately, there does appear to be pushback in Washington. The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, which would expand existing penalties on Russia, was introduced in the US Senate by South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal and has more than eighty cosponsors.

Europe’s moment and Ukraine’s resolve

For its part, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom have already moved ahead with their own new package of sanctions enacted on May 20, a day after the latest Trump-Putin call. Brussels and London are also pledging to increase military assistance to Ukraine to make up for any shortfall resulting from a US cutoff.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, all seem to understand that this could be Europe’s moment. But one of the biggest wildcards going forward is whether Europe can overcome its internal divisions—mainly opposition from Hungary and Slovakia—and surge arms to Ukraine.

Which brings us to Ukraine itself—and here the calculations are simple. As the Ukrainian political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov wrote earlier this week, “Ukraine’s choices are to fight back and risk being killed, or to surrender and be killed. By fighting back, Ukraine has a chance; by surrendering, it has none—making surrender not a viable option.”

And for Ukraine, as always, necessity has become the mother of invention. Faced with a potential shortfall in weapons, Kyiv has created a vibrant domestic arms industry focusing on drone warfare.

“In just three years, Ukraine’s military has evolved from defending itself with leftover Soviet weapons to pioneering a new kind of warfare,” the Ukrainian war correspondent Nataliya Gumenyuk writes in the Atlantic.

“Fortunately for Ukraine, American weapons are not the only factor that has rebalanced the battlefield in the past three years. Starting in 2024, Ukrainian-made drones definitively changed the way both sides waged war. For Ukraine, the adjustment was not just tactical, but a broader, doctrinal evolution in how its military fights.”

Gumenyuk concludes by noting that “as Ukraine’s partners speak of peace deals and security guarantees, Ukraine’s armed forces are adapting in every way they can to continue carrying out their mission . . . They cannot afford the luxury of counting on American commitments or Russian concessions, because for most Ukrainians, what matters above all is physical safety. And the only force protecting human lives in Ukraine is the Ukrainian military.”

So here we are, after three years of war and four months of failed diplomacy to end it. This war will be decided on the battlefield. It is for the United States and Europe to decide whether they are prepared to help Ukraine win it.

Brian Whitmore is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, an assistant professor of practice at the University of Texas-Arlington, and host of The Power Vertical Podcast.

The post Welcome to the long war: Why a Ukraine deal was never realistic appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Fiber optic drones could play decisive role in Russia’s summer offensive

David Kirichenko — Thu, 29 May 2025 18:48:59 +0000

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion more than three years ago, the war in Ukraine has been shaped by a technological arms race as both countries have struggled to achieve an innovative edge on the battlefield. While Ukraine’s dynamic tech sector and less cumbersome bureaucracy initially gave it the advantage, Russia may now be gaining the upper hand.

The weapon that is turning the tide in Russia’s favor is the rather humble-looking fiber optic drone. This variation on the first-person view (FPV) drones that have dominated the skies above the battlefield since 2022 may appear inconspicuous at first glance, but it is having a major impact on the front lines of the war and is expected to play a crucial role in Russia’s unfolding summer offensive.

As the name suggests, fiber optic drones are controlled by wire-thin cables linked to operators. Crucially, this makes them immune to the jamming systems that have become near-ubiquitous in the Russian and Ukrainian armies due to the rapid evolution of drone warfare. Thanks to their data-transporting cables, fiber optic drones benefit from improved video quality and can also operate at lower altitudes than their wireless counterparts, but it is their invulnerability to electronic jamming that makes them such a potentially game-changing weapon.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

There are some drawbacks to this kind of drone. Key problems include limited range and a tendency to become entangled in obstacles such as trees and pylons. Nevertheless, there is mounting recognition on both sides of the front lines and among international military observers that fiber optic drones are now indispensable. In a recent report, the BBC called these drones “the terrifying new weapon changing the war in Ukraine.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post noted that Moscow’s focus on fiber optic drones represents “the first time Russia has surpassed Ukraine in front-line drone technology since the full-scale invasion in 2022.”

The combat effectiveness of fiber optic drones became increasingly apparent amid heavy fighting in Russia’s Kursk region during the early months of 2025. Russia’s campaign to push Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region used large numbers of fiber optic drones to attack Ukraine’s flanks, cut supply lines, and cripple Ukrainian logistics. This eventually forced Ukrainian troops to retreat, ending an extended incursion into Russian territory that had been hugely embarrassing for Vladimir Putin. Ukrainian troops who fought in Kursk later reported that the only thing capable of stopping fiber optic drones was bad weather.

Eurasia Center events

Nonresident Senior Fellow for Technology and National Security

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

The technology behind fiber optic drones is no secret and is available to Ukraine as well as Russia. However, as is so often the case, Moscow benefits from weight of numbers and is looking to exploit its strengths. While Ukraine has experimented with a wide variety of drones produced by hundreds of different startup-style defense companies, Russia has concentrated its vast resources on the mass production of a relatively small number of specific weapons categories including fiber optic drones and shahed kamikaze drones. Moscow’s strategy is to focus on volume with the goal of overwhelming Ukraine’s defenses. Russia has also benefited from close ties with China, which is a key drone producer and ranks among the world’s leading suppliers of fiber optic cables.

Ukraine’s front line military commanders and the country’s tech sector developers recognize the growing importance of fiber optic drones and are now rapidly increasing production. However, they are currently lagging far behind Russia and have much work to do before they can catch up. It is a race Ukraine cannot afford to lose. One of the country’s largest drone manufacturers recently warned that if the current trajectory continues, Kyiv will soon be unable to defend against the sheer scale of Russia’s mass production.

Increased foreign investment in Ukraine’s defense industry could help close the gap. By financing the development and production of fiber optic drones, Ukraine’s international partners can put the country’s defenses on a firmer footing and enable the Ukrainian military to address the threat posed by Russia’s cable-connected drones. This trend has already been underway for some time, with more and more partner countries allocating funds for Ukrainian defense sector production. The challenge now is to channel this financing specifically toward fiber optic drones.

Time may not be on Ukraine’s side. The Russian army is currently in the early stages of a summer offensive that promises to be one of the largest and most ambitious of the entire war, with fighting already intensifying at various points along the front lines. If Putin’s commanders can implement the fiber optic drone tactics that proved so successful in the Kursk region, they may be able to finally overcome Ukraine’s dogged defenses and achieve a long-awaited breakthrough. In a war defined by attrition and innovation, Ukraine must now come up with urgent solutions to counter Russia’s fiber optic drone fleet.

David Kirichenko is an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

Metzl discusses US student visa policy on CNN’s NewsNight

bgalicia — Thu, 29 May 2025 11:56:00 +0000

On May 29, Jamie Metzl, nonresident senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative, appeared on CNN’s NewsNight with Abby Phillip to discuss US visa policy. He emphasized the importance of thoroughly vetting individuals entering the country while also highlighting the need to retain top global talent. Metzl noted that doing so is critical to maintaining US competitiveness, particularly in the context of growing strategic competition with China, which he described as a new “cold war.”

Fellow

Jamie Metzl

GeoStrategy Initiative Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Defense Technologies

The post Metzl discusses US student visa policy on CNN’s NewsNight appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Dispatch from Dayton: What Trump can learn about ending war

Frederick Kempe — Wed, 28 May 2025 22:30:00 +0000

DAYTON, Ohio—US President Donald Trump could learn a lot about how to best end Russia’s murderous war on Ukraine, now into its fourth year, from the US experience here thirty years ago in negotiating what became known as the Dayton Peace Accords.

If Trump wants to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war, and he has made that an administration priority, then he should reflect on what it took to finally stop Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 1995—after nearly four years of killing and more than 100,000 dead, including the massacre at Srebrenica, Europe’s worst genocide since the Holocaust.

A deal required relentless US diplomatic engagement backed by a demonstrated military threat and carried out alongside unified European allies. It also took twenty-one days of intensive negotiations in Dayton—not involving then US President Bill Clinton until the end—while all parties were cloistered from media and outside influences at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Marking the Dayton anniversary, Ohio Congressman Mike Turner brought the NATO Parliamentary Assembly here last week, gathering delegates from the thirty-two allies as well as from partner countries. They joined leaders from the Western Balkans, assorted experts, and even the Sarajevo Philharmonic, which performed for participants in a giant hangar stocked with presidential aircraft in the National Museum of the US Air Force.

Though I came to commemorate history, I left having interrogated its architects. My aim was to gain clues that might help the Trump administration in its still-fruitless quest for an end to Russia’s war on Ukraine.

It would be easy to discount the lessons for Ukraine and Russia now, where the stakes are so much higher, from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia then. Nuclear-armed Russia has two hundred times the land mass of Serbia and more than twenty times its population. And Ukraine, with its pre-war population of forty million and France-sized territory, is more than ten times larger in geographic size and population than Bosnia-Herzegovina. In my view, that makes the lessons only more compelling.

The first lesson? “Peace agreements are extremely rare,” former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, the European Union’s special representative at the talks thirty years ago, said in a session of former officials that I moderated. “In modern European history, there are only two really: Dayton and the Good Friday Agreement,” which in 1998 ended a thirty-year conflict in Northern Ireland known as “the Troubles.”

Both were forged in the aftermath of horrific violence, which is also the case in Ukraine. Yet both also required something that is still lacking today: determined, focused, and creative US leadership in lockstep with European partners. Both also succeeded through disciplined diplomacy, military leverage, and the unglamorous work of compromise.

Beyond that, winning peace in Dayton demanded US credibility but not neutrality. At Dayton, the United States was not an impartial mediator but rather a focused powerbroker, using whatever muscle was necessary to shape the outcome. No lasting deal can reward Putin’s aggression, just as Dayton didn’t knuckle under to reward Milošević.

Another lesson is that building peace is as crucial as ending war. Dayton and Belfast were both followed by years of international engagement, economic aid, and security commitments. Peace might have collapsed had those efforts not continued.

Most importantly, the United States led but did not go it alone. Peace that endures requires multilateral support. Dayton hasn’t worked perfectly, but without the European Union and NATO it wouldn’t have worked at all. “Only when the international actors can get together with a uniform message and policy can results be achieved,” said Bildt, who is also an Atlantic Council International Advisory Board member. “There was success in Dayton, yes. But it should also be said that there was massive failure prior to Dayton due to disagreements across the Atlantic, disagreements in Europe, and disagreements in the United States.”

US General Wesley Clark, who at the time was the military right hand to Richard Holbrooke, the chief US negotiator, took away a different lesson: “Don’t be timid,” Clark, a member of the Atlantic Council Board of Directors, said to the NATO parliamentarians. “We are going to have to be unified. And we are going to have to be forceful enough to convince Putin he will not win. Right now, he thinks he’s winning.”

In a slap across the face of Trump’s efforts to broker peace, Putin from last Friday to Sunday launched what Ukrainian officials called the largest combined aerial assault of the conflict, including some nine hundred drones and dozens of missiles of various types. That prompted a frustrated Trump to write on Truth Social about Putin that “something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” The US president added that “missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.”

The problem is that there’s nothing crazy about Putin’s calculations, and his reasons are obvious. He’s trying to wear down Ukraine and its partners, and he’s betting that he has more staying power. He sees US military and diplomatic support in retreat, European efforts as insufficient, and Ukraine as weary. Trump has belatedly acknowledged that Putin has been “tapping” him along.

With all that in mind, Washington will have to try far harder now than it did then to change a murderous despot’s mind—or resign itself to accepting Putin’s ongoing war and its ambition to redraw the European map.

Until Washington stood up to Milošević in 1995, Clark said, the Serb leader thought he could pull the wool over Europe’s eyes with his small army overrunning Bosnia. When he bid farewell to Milošević at the end of the talks, Clark remembers the Balkan leader saying, “We Serbs never had a chance against your NATO, your airplanes, your missiles.”

Speaking with me at the same NATO session, Christopher R. Hill, who was part of the Holbrooke delegation in Dayton, added another important lesson—that the parties must be ready to end the war. “I am not sure Russia is ready for peace,” he said. “They should be, but they don’t seem to be. I think until they are, we have got to help Ukraine because a hundred years from now . . . our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, will be thinking about what we did to deal with this crisis.”

The Dayton Accords were not perfect, but they were proof of what US leadership can achieve when properly applied. Speaking in Bosnia-Herzegovina shortly after the agreement was finalized, the then US president explained why the United States had chosen to lead, rather than cut and run from the European conflict.

“Around the world, people look to America not just because of our size and strength but because of what we stand for and what we’re willing to stand against,” Clinton said. “And though it imposes extra burdens on us, people trust us to help them share in the blessings of peace. We can’t be everywhere . . . But where we can make a difference, where our values and our interests are at stake, we must act.”

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on X: @FredKempe.

This edition is part of Frederick Kempe’s Inflection Points newsletter, a column of dispatches from a world in transition. To receive this newsletter throughout the week, sign up here.

The post Dispatch from Dayton: What Trump can learn about ending war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sectarianism, social media, and Syria’s information blackhole

Gregory Waters and Kayla Koontz — Wed, 28 May 2025 19:07:06 +0000

The first state-sponsored television news channel to air in Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime went live on May 5th, opening with a panel discussion between the governor of Suwayda and two prominent Druze leaders on the governorate’s ongoing security crisis. The launch of al-Ikhbariya is one small step in building back communication channels on security and governance across the country, but much more work must be done.

Since Assad’s December ousting, Syrians have struggled to sift the truth from fake claims about security incidents across the country and to find accurate information about local and central government decisions.

Under the Assad regime, all official media were state-run, overtly political, and heavily censored. Most Syrians instead relied on Facebook to obtain local news and avoid censorship. But since the regime’s collapse, many Syrians have struggled to keep up with current events, official decrees, and local news. Absent any clear official new channels, most Syrians turned to social media to fill the information void. This reliance on social media has predictably resulted in rampant misinformation and disinformation across the country. The flood of unverified news has been exploited by foreign actors as well, further exacerbating sectarian conflict and fears.

Nowhere is this more impactful than in Syria’s Alawite-majority coast—the minority group to which the Assad family belongs. These communities have, since December 8, relied on social media to both raise awareness of and look for sectarian crimes committed by civilians and security forces affiliated with the new government. But this ecosystem was immediately flooded with false and misleading claims of massacres and international intervention, bolstered by real events and confusing statements by the transitional authorities. All of this fueled panic and confusion even before the March 6 insurgent uprising and Alawite massacres that killed more than 1600 security forces and Sunni and Alawite civilians. Without access to a consistent stream of reliable news, Syrians of all sects have adopted divergent narratives of major security events and struggle to understand the diplomatic positions of foreign countries or assess their own security status in their regions. This uncertainty also extends to all details of the transitional, and now interim, government’s policies and security forces.

Utilizing two weeks of fieldwork across the coast and consistent monitoring and analysis of Syrian social media before and after the fall of the regime, this report provides anecdotal evidence of the issues and effects of the information ecosystem in Syria. This research followed a more loosely structured two weeks of fieldwork in the same areas in mid-February. Through this, three common themes of information sharing have emerged:

Social media dominates the information ecosystem, from rumor mills to international misinformation campaigns.
Locals and officials have utilized WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages to fill the communication void, but they have still failed to create clear lines of official communication.
The media void has fueled fear, hatred, and sparked instability over security uncertainty. Parallel narratives of the current security situation have created further sectarian divisions.

“The biggest problem is Facebook”

In the nearly two decades since Facebook’s creation, the social media platform has evolved into thousands of community, group, and celebrity pages that often compete for followers and daily traffic. Facebook’s algorithms often promote these high-traffic, generic ‘news’ pages over more accurate, smaller-traffic local news pages, flooding Syrians with unverified clickbait-style news.

Facebook has for years been Syria’s dominant social media and news platform, a crucial medium for sharing information about and calling attention to crimes occurring in their communities. Misinformation was widespread from the revolution’s earliest days in 2011, and similar trends were quickly apparent in the chaos of the regime’s collapse.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

For example, local Salamiyah community pages quoted a General Security official on May 8, saying, “We urge our fellow citizens to exercise caution and refrain from engaging with any fake accounts or pages and to rely only on the official channels issued by the Ministry of Interior to disseminate security news and information.”

When asked how locals along Syria’s Alawite-majority coast accessed news about their region, the response was a resounding accordance of: “social media.”

A Syrian Alawite family rides on a truck to return home, in Latakia, Syria, March 13, 2025. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Each governorate, village, and even neighborhood has experienced the fall of the regime and developments differently. Local news, perhaps even more so than national news, carries important implications for local safety, access to services, and impacts on daily life. For instance, information about the violence perpetrated by both the insurgents and the pro-government factions on March 6 became vital for survival, but fake claims muddied real events as everyone turned to social media for answers.

For many Alawites, all of these claims were taken together to prove the extent of a “genocide” against them in the aftermath of Assad’s fall. But as the fake claims were disproven, they became evidence for many Sunnis that the real deaths of Alawite civilians and crimes by pro-government forces must have also been faked. As a result, the two communities today have completely separate narratives of that week, and many attempts at interfaith dialogues since have devolved into debates over the basic facts.

One woman in Latakia put it simply: “The biggest problem is Facebook,” she told us.

The media environment in March was a microcosm of how fake news had been used since Assad’s downfall to push divergent realities between the pro and anti-new government communities. But this misinformation goes beyond local initiatives and rumors.

Recent investigations by the BBC, Arabi Post, Verify-Sy, and the German Marshall Fund have also underscored the role of foreign media campaigns backed by Iran, Israel, and Hezbollah to push sectarian narratives and fake news onlinee, including the rumors that Maher al-Assad was returning to the coast with the Russian army at his back, ready to reclaim Syria.

And as real violence against Alawites escalated in Homs in January and February, this disinformation ensured that Alawites in other areas like Latakia and Tartous, which had not seen any considerable violations, remained confused and terrified about their future safety. Promises from pro-Assad Alawite networks of an imminent international intervention by the United States, France, Israel, or the United Nations to either reassert Assad in Damascus or carve out an “Alawite Coastal State” were used to widen support for the growing anti-Damascus insurgent movement, culminating in widespread support or neutrality for the insurgent attacks in March.

A Christian businessman from Safita recalled the Maher rumor, pointing to the Alawite villages surrounding the city: “That night you could hear gunfire from every village here, they all believed he was returning and celebrated.” Other locals told the authors at the time how their Facebook feed had suddenly become full of Alawites threatening revenge on coastal Sunnis for opposing Assad. As a local from a village outside Tartous recalled, when the rumors began, gunshots were heard throughout the Khirbet al-Mazzah region, convincing the local General Security forces that they would soon come under attack. As the confusion threatened to escalate into armed conflict, Alawites in the village sheltered the security forces in their homes until the morning, ensuring the area remained calm.

Struggling official channels of communication

These social media rumors and foreign media campaigns spread fear and confusion across Syria’s minority regions by exploiting both the real sectarian violations and the government’s lack of official news channels. For its part, the new government has made some initial attempts to spread information about municipal news, but still struggles greatly at relaying clear security-related statements or establishing effective two-way communication channels so locals can clarify rumors.

The Tartous and Latakia Governorate Facebook pages, which were formed in mid-December 2024 and appear to be run by government employees, regularly post updates of meetings and activities conducted across the governorate. Yet these pages have relatively few followers, are overshadowed by much higher traffic privately-run pages, and do not resolve the fears of those who already distrust the government. The majority of people, when asked where they get official government news from, made no mention of such pages, instead relying on word of mouth and their own online networks.

It all leads to one question. As a Christian in Safita asked, “Who represents the government?”

Official communication for security issues is even more opaque.

While there is one official Ministry of Interior page, for example, there are dozens of Facebook pages that claim to represent the General Security Services, with no way to discern any of their affiliations.

Regardless, a single Ministry of Interior page does not address the vast majority of Syrians’ needs: detailed and up-to-date information on security issues. This is not just a problem of clear government communication, but also a lack of two-way communication, allowing locals to check rumors or events witnessed in their towns.

To address this, local officials in the cities of Latakia and Tartous created multiple WhatsApp groups to directly connect their communities to security and administrative officials on security developments.

A business owner in Latakia city who was among the first invited to the group claimed the system “was very useful in the early days of the new administration because of the rise in crime.” Residents will text in reports about robberies or suspicious activity, and security forces will respond in a timelier manner than when using phone lines, which he claimed were always busy. These groups have also become a central means for regional officials to disseminate news.

However, in Tartous, a female activist stated that the WhatsApp groups were almost entirely composed of men and were capped at four hundred people. As she wasn’t included in that limit, she would have to reach out to others to get information from or to the channel. The business owner from Latakia also voiced concerns about the size of the group, saying that some people were clogging the chat with non-security-related comments and would then have to be removed from the group by moderators.

While this approach improves some communication, many criticize this improvised system: “Why is an official decree distributed in a WhatsApp channel?” asks a Sunni activist in Tartous.

Confusion about official policies of the government, such as the settlement process for ex-regime soldiers, rules around civil society, curfews, and checkpoints, has forced many to lie low and wait anxiously for clarity. As a priest in Suqlabiyah stated, locals come to him with questions about what makes a war criminal: “There is confusion about who is going to be detained or killed.”

The rift between realities

In Latakia, some Sunnis who spoke with the authors were unsure what to think about the news of the massacres on the coast. They don’t know or perhaps don’t want to know if civilians were killed. Meanwhile, in Baniyas, many survivors argue that there were no insurgents in the city, but rather it began with a government-sanctioned slaughter. These conflicting realities continue to be fought online, but the Facebook quarrels have real-life consequences.

During the long years of Syria’s civil war, many regions became isolated and rooted in their local realities of struggle. As al-Sharaa’s forces seized the country, many were optimistic, though they knew little of his government in Idlib. However, as the new government settled in and in light of the violence on the coast and elsewhere, the initial hope has faded into distrust and confusion. Those interviewed had more questions than answers about the various security forces and their origins, the factions from the north, life in Idlib under al-Sharaa’s militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the ideology of the current government, and the conditions in nearby governorates.

Officials are deeply aware of this—one security officer in Qadmus told us that “combatting fear is a major issue.”

This uncertainty about the future has heightened sectarianism based on the regime’s careful weaponization of Syria’s demographic makeup. Fear of military checkpoints has further isolated many Alawites, while Facebook rumors about roving foreign fighters and factions committing daily crimes against Alawites have prevented most from engaging with local security officials. Distrust in the government, in hand with their resounding silence on the specifics of the events of March 6, has left Syrians to piece together their own narratives, further separating the country into distinct realities.

Reconstructing the Syrian information ecosystem

Breaking Syria from Facebook’s grasp will not be easy or quick. However, the Syrian authorities and international organizations can take several steps to help begin the process.

First, ensuring that the March 6 Investigation Committee releases an accurate and uncensored report on the events of that week will go a long way towards bridging a trust gap between the Sunni and Alawite narratives, as most Sunnis who denied the deaths of Alawite civilians also told the authors that they would accept whatever conclusion the committee came to.

Second, expanding civil communication networks will help foster more accurate and effective local news systems. This can include both word-of-mouth via civil councils that engage with local officials, as well as local journalists on Facebook. Expanding these systems requires funding support from the international community and clear authorization from Damascus to ensure local civil networks do not face any risk of legal troubles.

Third, expanding official government media channels to include local security announcements, such as curfews, deployments, and patrols, and, importantly, addressing any violations or crimes rumored to have been committed by security forces.

Lastly, international organizations should increase funding for local media outlets, especially those engaged in fact-checking and who demonstrate professional standards in what they share. Helping existing journalists organize into new institutions with websites outside of Facebook will further bolster their credibility and reach.

Gregory Waters is a researcher at the Syrian Archive and an independent analyst whose research focuses on the development and reform of security institutions, local governance initiatives, and sectarian relations.

Kayla Koontz is a PhD candidate at the Carter School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution and a researcher at the Syrian Archive.

The post Sectarianism, social media, and Syria’s information blackhole appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hammes speaks about China’s maritime expansion on Midrats podcast

kwinzerwilks — Wed, 28 May 2025 15:13:53 +0000

On May 5, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow T.X. Hammes was a guest on the Midrats podcast. The episode, titled “China’s Overseas Bases & the Transition to War,” discusses how China continues to expand its ownership, access, and control of ports globally while simultaneously building the world’s largest navy and diverse set of military capabilities to defeat the US military in the Indo-Pacific.

Fellow

Thomas X. Hammes

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Conflict Defense Industry

The post Hammes speaks about China’s maritime expansion on Midrats podcast appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Hammes quoted in The Economist article on US shipment of ship-killer missiles to the Philippines

kwinzerwilks — Wed, 28 May 2025 14:52:38 +0000

On May 22, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow T.X. Hammes was quoted in The Economist in an article titled “America’s new ship-killer missiles come to the Philippines.” Hammes believes that the deployment of the short-range missile system will create uncertainty for China’s military leaders, enhancing US deterrence efforts in the region.

Fellow

Thomas X. Hammes

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Conflict Defense Industry

The post Hammes quoted in The Economist article on US shipment of ship-killer missiles to the Philippines appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russia is extinguishing all traces of Ukrainian identity in occupied Ukraine

Kateryna Odarchenko — Tue, 27 May 2025 20:39:21 +0000

In recent months, US-led efforts to initiate a Russia-Ukraine peace process have focused primarily on the issue of potential Ukrainian territorial concessions. But as negotiating teams discuss technical details and draw lines on maps, almost no attention is being paid to the desperate plight of the millions of Ukrainians currently living under Russian occupation.

Throughout occupied Ukraine, the Russian authorities are seeking to consolidate their control by eradicating all traces of Ukrainian statehood and national identity while imposing a reign of terror on the civilian population. If these Russian occupation policies are allowed to pass unchallenged in the international arena, it will set a disastrous precedent for the use of force against civilians and the weaponization of national identity in other contested regions globally.

From the very first days of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, it was clear that Russia intended to entrench itself firmly in occupied regions of Ukraine. Russian troops often arrived armed with lists of local community leaders including elected officials, journalists, activists, religious figures, and military veterans. Those who refused to cooperate were likely to be detained before disappearing into a vast network of Russian prisons and camps.

Ukrainian detainees are being systematically subjected to torture and other human rights abuses, according to an international investigation led by the French group Forbidden Stories together with thirteen media outlets including Britain’s Guardian newspaper, the Washington Post, and Le Monde. While it is not possible to calculate exactly how many Ukrainian civilians have been abducted in the occupied regions, UN officials have concluded that the large scale and systematic nature of the disappearances qualifies as a crime against humanity.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Those who remain in areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control face a regime of forced russification encompassing everything from language and the media to education and religion. Place names have been changed to reflect the new Russian realities, with the curriculum in local schools transformed in line with the Kremlin’s anti-Ukrainian imperial dogmas. Parents who attempt to shield their children from classroom indoctrination are being threatened with loss of custody.

Ukrainian residents in the occupied regions of the country have also come under increasing pressure from the Kremlin to accept Russian citizenship. Anyone who refuses to take a Russian passport risks losing access to a range of essential services including healthcare. They also face restrictions on property rights along with the ability to run a business and use banking services.

This passport campaign has intensified significantly in recent months, with Russian President Vladimir Putin issuing a decree announcing that Ukrainians living under Russian occupation have until September 2025 to accept Russian citizenship or face possible deportation from their own homes. Understandably, Moscow’s ruthless tactics are proving difficult to resist. Kremlin officials claim that by March 2025, Russian passports had been issued to approximately 3.5 million people in occupied Ukraine.

Moscow is accused of engaging in religious persecution throughout the occupied regions, with all Christian denominations other that the Kremlin-linked Russian Orthodox Church facing various degrees of restrictive measures and oppression. Ukrainian Foreign Ministry officials stated in spring 2025 that the Russian occupation authorities have killed dozens of clergy members over the past three years while damaging or destroying hundreds of churches.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Russia has been careful to prevent information about conditions in occupied Ukraine from reaching the outside world. All independent media sources have been shut down throughout the occupied regions, and have been replaced by new Kremlin-controlled outlets. Individual journalists have frequently been among those targeted for oppressive measures including physical abuse and imprisonment.

One of the few reporters to shed light on the horrors unfolding in Russian-occupied Ukraine was Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna, who visited areas under occupation on multiple occasions before being captured by the Russian authorities in summer 2023. Roshchyna died after a year in Russian captivity. When her body was returned to Ukraine in early 2025, it showed signs of torture.

From a military standpoint, it may not currently be feasible to liberate all of the Ukrainian regions held by Moscow. Nevertheless, the crimes being committed by the Kremlin in occupied Ukraine are unprecedented in modern European history and cannot be ignored.

It is vital that the human rights of Ukrainians living under Russian occupation feature prominently in any peace process. This includes the rights of those currently being held in Russian jails. Ukraine’s Western partners must maintain or increase sanctions pressure, while also expanding support for Ukrainian civil society and raising awareness about Russia’s actions among international audiences.

Looking ahead, longer term investments are also needed to help document war crimes and support Ukrainian victims of the Russian occupation. Ultimately, the most meaningful response to Russia’s campaign against Ukrainian identity is to make sure Ukraine is in a position to not only survive but thrive as an independent European nation.

Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine.

Soofer’s report, “Strengthening Deterrence with SLCM-N,” quoted in Asia Times article

Atlantic Council — Tue, 27 May 2025 20:08:02 +0000

On May 13, Forward Defense senior fellow Robert Soofer was quoted in an Asia Times article titled, “US Navy wants sea-launched nuke missiles to hold China at bay.” The article cites his Atlantic Council issue brief, co-authored with John Harvey, “Strengthening Deterrence with SLCM-N.” The article references their argument that SLCM-N capabilities address “a US capability gap in response to the threat of limited nuclear employment.”

Former fellow

Robert Soofer

Former Senior Fellow

Forward Defense

Arms Control Defense Policy

Public Event Tue, May 27, 2025 • 9:00 am ET

The post Soofer’s report, “Strengthening Deterrence with SLCM-N,” quoted in Asia Times article appeared first on Atlantic Council.

British ambassador to the US: The UK must ‘become less dependent on America, while remaining inseparably linked’

Peter Mandelson — Tue, 27 May 2025 19:40:18 +0000

On May 27, Peter Mandelson, the British ambassador to the United States, spoke at this year’s edition of the Atlantic Council’s Christopher J. Makins Lecture, a series exploring the state of the Atlantic partnership and its future direction. The below is adapted from his opening speech, entitled “Renewing the Transatlantic Alliance: Peace Through Strength in a New Age of Great Power Rivalry.”

Watch the full event

The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson on Britain in an enduring transatlantic relationship

British Ambassador to the United States The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson speaks at the 2025 Christopher J. Makins lecture to discuss the significance of the transatlantic relationship during this unprecedented geopolitical period.

Economy & Business Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy Security & Defense

Eighty years ago this month, the streets of Britain, America, and allied nations erupted in celebration at the fall of fascism in Europe.

For me personally, it’s a source of enormous pride that my grandfather, Herbert Morrison, served as home secretary in Winston Churchill’s wartime coalition.

He also served as deputy prime minister in Clement Attlee’s transformative postwar government in Britain. That government didn’t just support the formation of NATO to counter Soviet expansionism—they were the co-architects of it.

Amidst Cold War tensions and economic upheaval, Britain and America advanced from allies to integrated strategic partners at the dawn of the nuclear age, our scientists having joined forces in the Manhattan Project to create the advantage we had at the beginning of this age.

It was Western unity which ultimately ended the Cold War peacefully and demonstrated resilience to new threats, including the 9/11 attacks, where NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time.

Over eight decades, the foundations of collective defense have remained steadfast whilst the transatlantic relationship has continuously evolved and adapted to counter new challenges.

Today, I want to talk about the profound challenge we face in a new age of great power rivalry, a period characterized by political volatility, by economic mercantilism, and geopolitical competition.

We are witnessing the end of an era of hyper-globalization where we assumed that economic integration had made wars almost obsolete.

The logic seemed compelling: Mutual interests, integrated global supply chains, and shared economic stakes created too much to lose from warfare. History seemed to point only in one direction.

And those comfortable assumptions have been shattered.

We now see the rise of modern mercantilism, where nations prefer to prioritize national economic strength and autonomy in many respects.

States are intervening and playing a more protectionist role in managing trade and directing industrial policy to become ever more self-sufficient and localized.

I’m not declaring globalization dead, but it is being radically reconfigured around us.

China’s export-driven growth strategy flooded the global market with state-subsidized products, undercut Western manufacturing, and hollowed out industry.

The social disruption of rapid technological change, where, if you take media as an example, we have moved suddenly from decades of information flowing to people through established news organizations to a future where you only see “news” online that is curated to what you want to know, or what the algorithm—and those behind it—decides you want to know. And then there’s the backlash against globalization’s uneven distribution of benefits.

You can produce many different numbers to show the widening wealth disparities in the West over the past thirty years, but I would choose a simple one: GDP per capita in the United States has grown about 60 percent to 70 percent in real terms, but real median household income growth has been about 20 percent to 25 percent. The typical American household has not done as well as the booming US economy would suggest. A similar story holds true across all our countries in the West.

This has posed profound challenges to culture, place, and society—which too many of us over the past decades, frankly, have ignored. From the American Midwest to the coastal towns of England, a hands-off approach left many places adrift from the success stories of global cities such as London and New York.

And in a world which has often felt dominated by the exponential rise of social media, a sense of grievance—and of difference between us and them—has been amplified.

So yes, I credit President Trump’s acute political instincts in identifying the anxieties gripping not only millions of Americans, but also far more pervasive global trends: Economic stagnation, a sense of irreversible decline, the lost promise of meaningful work for so many people. These are the giants now that we must confront head-on.

So, where do we go next?

It is in no one’s interest—certainly not those of close allies—that each country pursues a wholly individualized path, which leads to accelerated economic fragmentation.

But if we are serious about rebuilding confidence in the international system, if we wish to maintain a set of common rules and standards—a shared economic and security commons in between us—we need to devote an enormous amount of energy and goodwill to preserve, sustain, and deepen the alliances which exist between like-minded countries.

For the UK and the rest of Europe, we must reboot the transatlantic alliance—indeed, a boot up the proverbial backside is needed now—to deliver peace through strength across three interconnected domains: military, economic, and technological.

For my generation, the twentieth-century gains in peace and prosperity were thought of as a European peace dividend.

I now recognize it as an urgent bill, that peace dividend: An urgent bill for decades of defense underinvestment—a payment that is long overdue.

We have lived in a fantasy created by the US security guarantee, complacent that a friendly heavyweight across the water would be always there when the going gets tough.

We meet in the shadow of Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year.

The UK strongly supports President Trump’s initiative to bring this terrible war to an end. And we are working together with partners to secure a just and lasting peace.

The Ukraine conflict has served as a brutal wake-up call. State-on-state war has returned to Europe. Adversaries are using nuclear rhetoric to influence decision-making, and we are seeing regular attacks on European infrastructure beneath the threshold of warfare.

It is crystal clear that European defense must step up and rebalance for our collective security. Actually, I think President Trump is doing Europe a favor by confronting us with this reality.

The United States is the UK’s closest defense and security ally. We must become less dependent on America, while remaining inseparably linked to America—a distinction that I underline of critical importance. Yes, less dependent, but still inseparably linked.

Ukraine is just one flashpoint of many amid growing global instability. Even the US does not have limitless resources.

This is precisely why Britain must step up in providing for European security and why we have committed to the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War.

We will become NATO’s fastest-innovating nation, ensuring our military forces have the technological and military capabilities to secure long-term strategic advantage, not just spending more, but spending better.

Of course, this all needs to be grounded in intelligent and effective strategic choices, not merely increased expenditure. Efficiency and innovation to renew our defense manufacturing bases must drive every pound, every dollar, and every euro that we invest.

And we will double down on our alliances. In defense, we will always be NATO first but not NATO only—and this is particularly true of the UK’s focus on the Indo-Pacific, as well as our new security partnership with Europe.

One good example is AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership with Australia and America, which will deliver advanced nuclear-powered submarines and catalyze technology sharing on other advanced capabilities.

Turning to the theme of economic strength, Britain now enjoys something that has eluded us for far too long: a government with both unity of purpose and longevity.

This government’s mandate and President Trump’s will both last for the next four years—providing huge opportunities for collaboration between us.

We are both pro-business and pro-trade in Britain, and committed to innovation, not as empty slogans but as practical imperatives.

This UK government is committed to creating the best investment environment with a regulatory reset that makes us the most competitive in Europe—that’s our aim.

One of the reasons we were able to close the first trade deal of the Trump administration is that our strong economic relationship between our countries is fair, balanced, and reciprocal. But also because, frankly, we are a businesslike nation with pragmatic instincts.

One of the great backhanded insults in British history was when Napoleon Bonaparte dismissed us as a mere “nation of shopkeepers.” He was right: Commerce is the lifeblood which flows through our veins, and that is one reason why we British and American cousins remain so close.

And that is also one reason why I see the current deal as the beginning of a new chapter as well as an end, in a sense, in itself. There is scope for an even more transformative stage in our long partnership. And I believe that centers on technology.

So let me address technological strength as the third. We face a clear, shared threat. There is nothing in this world I fear more than China winning the race for technological dominance in the coming decades.

China represents a far more dynamic and formidable strategic rival than the Soviet Union ever was: economically sophisticated, highly innovative, and strategically patient.

The United Kingdom and United States are the only two Western nations with trillion-dollar technology ecosystems combined with unparalleled talent and research capabilities in our universities and corporations.

We must combine forces, in my view, to drive the scientific breakthroughs that will define this century, and AI should be the spearpoint of that collaboration.

Artificial intelligence stands as the next great foundational technology. Through its power, we can rapidly make progress across so many frontiers of science: quantum, synthetic biology, medicine, nuclear fusion.

Rather than stifling these transformative technologies through excessive regulation, our two governments must unleash their immense potential for human benefit and Western advantage.

Let me say this in conclusion. In his immortal Iron Curtain speech, delivered in Missouri, Churchill spoke eloquently about the primacy of American power and its awesome responsibility to future generations.

Today, we face our own historical inflection point.

No one should doubt that we face accelerating global competition in which it is strongly in our interests to expand the perimeter of our alliances while deepening the transatlantic partnership at its core.

So our diplomacy must be more urgent, more agile, and more creative. We must deepen the political and military alliances which defined our past successes but also create new partnerships—borne in and of technology—which will redefine our future. The stakes could not be higher. The opportunities, actually, could not be greater. And I am confident that our two countries will indeed rise together to meet those challenges.

Peter Mandelson is the British ambassador to the United States.

Watch the full event

The post British ambassador to the US: The UK must ‘become less dependent on America, while remaining inseparably linked’ appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russia’s summer offensive could spark a new humanitarian crisis in Ukraine

Viktor Liakh, Melinda Haring — Tue, 27 May 2025 19:34:22 +0000

As the Russian army gears up for a major summer offensive, Ukraine could soon be facing its most serious humanitarian crisis since the initial phase of the full-scale invasion more than three years ago. If the West does not act swiftly by sending military aid, tightening sanctions, and reaffirming its long-term commitment to Ukraine, the unfolding crisis could overwhelm Kyiv and undermine the Ukrainian war effort.

Current Russian troop movements and battlefield dynamics indicate that the coming summer offensive may be one of the largest and most ambitious of the entire war. If successful, this campaign could allow Russian troops to push the front line tens of kilometers forward into Ukrainian-held territory and overrun parts of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk provinces.

The cities of Kostyantynivka, Pokrovsk, and Kramatorsk are high on the list of likely targets. They have all experienced significant damage and large-scale displacement as a result of Russian bombardment. If these cities and others in the surrounding area fall to the Russians in the coming months, the wider region could become depopulated as large numbers of people flee the fighting.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Based on current trends and previous displacement waves, at least two hundred thousand Ukrainian civilians living close to the current front lines of the war could be forced to leave their homes by fall 2025. This is not speculation; it is informed by experience gained during Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Since the beginning of the invasion in February 2022, Ukrainian organizations have been on the front lines of the humanitarian response. They have provided essential aid, temporary housing, psychological support, and ongoing reintegration counselling to help Ukrainians displaced by Russia’s invasion rebuild dignity and restart their lives.

Ukraine’s civil society has worked wonders over the past three years but cannot realistically hope to absorb another 200,000 diplaced people without international support. The situation is even more alarming due to the recent closure of USAID, which was a major player in the humanitarian response to Russia’s invasion. With Putin’s troops already advancing, Ukraine’s Western partners must not ignore the looming danger.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), more than 3.6 million people remained internally displaced within Ukraine as of early 2025. Most are women, children, and elderly individuals. Many have already been forced to flee multiple times. This population of displaced people may soon become considerably larger.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Compounding the crisis, European governments are beginning to phase out temporary support programs for Ukrainians. While the EU recently agreed to extend temporary protection through 2026, enforcement is sometimes patchy. Meanwhile, there are indications across Europe that resettlement fatigue is growing.

In the UK and US, political rhetoric on the topic of Ukrainian refugees has shifted ominously. Most recently, reports emerged that the Trump administration is exploring options to repatriate Ukrainians who entered the United States following the start of the full-scale Russian invasion.

If these trends continue, millions of Ukrainians could find themselves trapped between advancing Russian forces and a closing window of international asylum. While Ukrainians in the east of the country flee Putin’s invading army, many Ukrainian refugees may be forced to return home with uncertain prospects.

If the overstretched Ukrainian military is unable to contain Russia’s summer offensive, the fallout will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The displacement of at least 200,000 more civilians would severely strain humanitarian corridors, destabilize border regions, and sow chaos in Ukrainian cities already struggling to absorb previous waves of refugees.

Ukraine’s Western partners still have time to prevent this, but they must act with a sense of urgency. While the Trump administration has been clear that it does not plan to provide Ukraine with further military aid, it should continue sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians while confirming its readiness to sell arms to Kyiv. Europe must speed up the delivery of promised weapons and should expand supplies significantly to improve Ukraine’s position on the battlefield.

In parallel, European countries should take steps to provide reassurance and protect the legal status of Ukrainian refugees. Donor organizations can help by strengthening partnerships with Ukrainian civil society groups that have demonstrated agility, transparency, and high levels of local trust.

The next phase of Russia’s invasion is not just being fought on the front lines of the war. It is taking place across the country in bomb shelters, train stations, and temporary accommodations. Russia is trying to break Ukrainian resistance by making large parts of Ukraine unlivable and destabilizing the country. Ukraine’s partners can do much to counter these efforts, but they must act now before the military and humanitarian situation deteriorates further.

Viktor Liakh is president of the East Europe Foundation. Melinda Haring is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a senior advisor at Razom for Ukraine.

Michta featured in RealClearDefense on concrete actions to strengthen NATO’s resolve amid shifting geopolitics

bgalicia — Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:18 +0000

Senior Fellow, GeoStrategy Initiative

On May 21, 2025, Andew Michta, senior fellow in the GeoStrategy Initiative, was highlighted in RealClearDefense on a report on how NATO can deter Russian aggression without an overreliance on US military power, which he co-authored with Scott Lee, Peter Jones, and Lisa Bembenick of MITRE. The authors argue that, as the United States pivots toward the Indo-Pacific and urges greater defense spending from its allies, European leadership will be essential to the Alliance’s strength and cohesion.

NATO must develop a force structure and a mix of capabilities that allow for the execution of regional defense plans with an emphasis on burden sharing. This modernization strategy must be objective, threat-based, and resource-informed.

Andrew Michta

Staff

Andrew A. Michta

GeoStrategy Initiative Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Central Europe Eastern Europe

The post Michta featured in RealClearDefense on concrete actions to strengthen NATO’s resolve amid shifting geopolitics appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Do Trump’s criticisms of Putin mark a turning point in his Russia policy?

John E. Herbst — Tue, 27 May 2025 18:04:35 +0000

This is part of a series of regular assessments of the efforts, spearheaded by the Trump administration, to achieve a negotiated end to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Read previous entries here and here.

What’s new?

On May 25, US President Donald Trump issued a blistering criticism of Russia’s massive and dayslong bombardment of Kyiv, Odesa, and other Ukrainian cities. Trump’s language was blunt and directed squarely at Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an impromptu discussion with reporters, Trump said of Putin: “I’ve known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he’s sending rockets into cities and killing people, and I don’t like it at all. We’re in the middle of talking and he’s sending rockets into Kyiv and other cities. I don’t like it at all.” He also spoke about imposing additional sanctions on Russia.

Trump followed up this statement with a strongly worded Truth Social post, in which he said that Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY! . . . I’ve always said that he wants ALL of Ukraine, not just a piece of it, and maybe that’s proving to be right, but if he does, it will lead to the downfall of Russia!”

What does it mean?

These developments have led some observers to ask whether, after weeks of expressing frustration but ultimately accommodating Kremlin obstructionism, the Trump administration is about to take a tough stand. This was the strongest of several statements Trump has made against Putin over the past two months as it has become obvious, even to members of the administration who have sought to end support for Ukraine, that Putin has no interest in accepting Trump’s approach to achieving a negotiated end to the war. Trump made similar remarks in late April and early May, both suggesting that he would impose additional sanctions on Russia.

But there’s the rub. Trump’s criticism of Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities and Kremlin nay-saying in the peace talks has not led to new sanctions. And just last week, after his long phone call with Putin, who once more refused US terms for a cease-fire, Trump heralded the Kremlin call for continuing direct Russia-Ukraine talks. It is therefore no surprise that Putin doubled down with massive air strikes in Ukraine.

Putin no doubt takes solace that in the Truth Social post that labeled him “CRAZY,” Trump also slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for “talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don’t like it, and it better stop.” At this point, Putin reads Trump, like other Western leaders since Russia’s 2008 war in Georgia, as unwilling to take strong action against aggression.

Is Putin right? Yes, Trump has vacillated over the past three months, treating Zelenskyy’s understandable public reservations about White House wavering more harshly than Putin’s active obstruction of US objectives. Trump has also taken substantial criticism from friendly editorial pages, such as the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, as well as from at least some Republicans in Congress. On Monday, Republican Representative Don Bacon and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley both publicly called on Trump to take further action against Russia.

What to watch next

What’s more, momentum is building to move the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025—introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and now cosponsored by eighty-one senators. According to well-connected Republicans, the White House saw value in the presentation of the bill in April as a way of subtly putting pressure on the Kremlin, but it did not want any movement toward passage at that time. In the wake of recent developments, I am hearing that the Trump administration is mulling giving Republican senators the option of voting their conscience. With more than eighty cosponsors, that means the bill would pass easily.

This step cannot be taken for granted, and it is a sign that Putin’s aggressive posture—which prompted even US Vice President JD Vance to remark earlier this month that Russia was asking for too much—may finally prompt Trump to take more vigorous action. Indeed, Putin continued his vicious air campaign on Monday night, prompting another Truth Social post on Tuesday where Trump focused only on Putin, saying that the Russian leader is “playing with fire.”

While it remains to be seen whether actions will follow from Trump’s tougher rhetoric, Zelenskyy could help himself and Ukraine by taking a page from Putin’s playbook and controlling his urge to criticize White House policy. Responding to Trump’s strong criticism of Russia’s belligerence, Putin called Trump overly emotional but still thanked him for his peace efforts. Even justified criticism of US policy by the Ukrainian president diverts Trump’s attention from the real problem.

John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.

The post Do Trump’s criticisms of Putin mark a turning point in his Russia policy? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Eftimiades interviewed by NTD on Chinese espionage

Atlantic Council — Tue, 27 May 2025 15:06:19 +0000

On May 20, Forward Defense nonresident senior fellow Nicholas Eftimiades was interviewed by NTS News, in a segment entitled, “Former Intelligence Officer: China Leverages Entire Society for Intel.” With Tiffany Meier, Eftimiades discusses the Chinese Communist Party’s espionage strategy, pulling insights from his book, Chinese Intelligence Operations and Tactics.

Fellow

Nicholas Eftimiades

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

China Intelligence

The post Eftimiades interviewed by NTD on Chinese espionage appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Jordan-Israel security cooperation continues quietly but unabated

Emily Milliken — Tue, 27 May 2025 13:59:17 +0000

In the almost two years since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and launch of Israel’s war in Gaza, Jordan has made several diplomatic moves that could indicate their relationship with Israel is in trouble: Pulling out of a joint water-for-energy deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel in November 2023, recalling Amman’s ambassador from Israel, voting to expel the Israeli ambassador to Jordan in May 2024, and calling for a weapons embargo on Israel, to name a few.

And since the collapse of the January 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Jordanian officials like King Abdullah II and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi have issued several inflammatory comments about Israel and rejected suggestions to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries.

Yet, on a military and intelligence level, cooperation continues to thrive. In April 2024, Jordan, in coordination with the United States, assisted in the downing of many of the more than three hundred missiles and drones that Iran and its proxies launched at targets in Israel. French Rafale fighter jets also intercepted some of those weapons at Amman’s request. This support came amid reports from an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-linked news agency that Iran had threatened Jordan that it would become a target if it cooperated with Israel again.

Two months later, Jordan—along with officials from Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—met in Manama with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff General Hertzi Halevi and United States Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Michael Erik Kurilla to discuss regional security cooperation. Israeli and Jordanian officials have continued to meet secretly to discuss shared security concerns, including the fallout of the ousting of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Israel’s ensuing military campaign there.

Continued imperative for cooperation

Amman has calculated that diplomatic moves such as withdrawing from the water-for-energy deal will help to appease its population—more than 50 percent of which identifies as Palestinian—without fundamentally altering Jordan’s longstanding security arrangement with Israel.

Israel-Jordan relations long predate the signing of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty in 1994, but the dynamic has especially evolved in the years since that normalization. That includes intelligence sharing, security assistance, and even some weapon deliveries—like Israel’s 2015 transfer to Jordan of sixteen decommissioned AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships, aimed at bolstering the Kingdom’s capacity to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) and other insurgents from neighboring Iraq and Syria. The relationship also has benefits outside of the military and security realm, with Israel giving Jordan access to more than one hundred million cubic meters of water per year and a substantial amount of natural gas. Additionally, Jordan’s cooperation is viewed as a critical motivator for the United States to provide the small Arab country with $1.45 billion annually in aid.

At the same time, Jordan’s relationship with Israel is crucial in its efforts to curb rising Iranian influence in the country, which has been escalating over the past year and a half. Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Yemen have repeatedly violated Jordanian airspace to launch drone attacks on Israel, and there have been several instances of US and Jordanian authorities thwarting Iranian attempts to smuggle arms into the country. Those weapons shipments have included Claymore mines, C4 and Semtex explosives, Kalashnikov rifles, and 107mm Katyusha rockets, with at least some of them destined for the West Bank, according to reports from Jordanian sources.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The frequent gun and drug smuggling has become such a concern for the Israeli government that in May, it approved a five-year $1.4 billion plan to secure the border with Jordan that would include increased IDF presence in the area, and a 425-kilometer high-tech border fence that would run from Hamat Gader in Israel’s north to the Samar Sands, north of Eilat. In Israel’s official statement about the plan, they cited that it comes in response to the heightened number of infiltrations and weapons smuggling from the border.

The issue of Iranian presence in Jordan could soon balloon. Tehran could see the Jordanian government’s recent decision to declare the Muslim Brotherhood—and even the promotion of its ideology—illegal as a prime opportunity to expand its foothold in the country and possibly offset some of its losses from the decimation of Hamas’ military capabilities and leadership, the elimination of top Hezbollah military and political leaders, including longtime Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria. Even prior to the decision, reports indicated that Iran was trying to recruit young, radicalized members of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood. This was evidenced in May 2024 by Jordanian authorities foiling a plot to smuggle weapons from Iran-backed militias in Syria to a Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood for use in undisclosed acts of sabotage and a statement in April 2024 made by the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah that the group intends to supply twelve thousand Jordanians with rockets and explosives to fight against Israel.

Even with all these threats, Jordanian leadership recognizes that widespread domestic unrest over Amman being seen as too supportive of Israel could ignite existing discontent over the struggling Jordanian economy and several unpopular socio-economic policies, potentially leading to an uprising. Fears of such an outcome are particularly raw, given accusations in 2021 that King Abdullah II’s younger brother, popular former Crown Prince Hamzah bin Hussein, was involved in a potential effort to overthrow the government.

People gather after Friday prayers during a protest in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, in Amman, Jordan, March 21, 2025. REUTERS/Jehad Shelbak

The King knows that he must balance the important security and economic support he receives from Jerusalem with mounting domestic pressure to sever relations. However, maintaining this partnership will only get more difficult if the war in Gaza drags on and potentially escalates, which seems likely after Israel’s security cabinet approved a new comprehensive plan on May 5th to intensify its offensive against Hamas and occupy Gaza.

Policy recommendations

To preserve and even deepen the Israeli-Jordanian partnership in this volatile context, both sides should pursue cooperation that is largely out of the public eye but still provides strategic value.

For example, while Jordan waits for its long-requested Patriot missile batteries from the United States, Israel could quietly augment Jordanian air defenses by deploying an Iron Dome or even an Arrow 3 system near the Israel-Jordan border. The move would provide critical coverage from Iranian-backed drone and missile threats over joint Israel-Jordan airspace while also avoiding triggering the domestic backlash that would come with these systems being deployed within Jordanian territory.

Second, both countries should formalize intelligence coordination in areas of counter-smuggling, cyber defense, and early-warning capabilities. Such cooperation could mean establishing joint intelligence cells or data-sharing platforms where Israeli, Jordanian, and American officials can share information and insights in real time, allowing them to better anticipate and respond to security threats.

Third, both countries should build on Jordan’s role in the existing Israel-Gulf land bridge, a land route between the Gulf and Israel’s seaports meant to allow for exporting goods from Asia to Europe via Israel, by expanding infrastructure and regulatory coordination. To reduce the blowback from such projects, which are inherently more visible and politically sensitive, they should be integrated into broader multilateral initiatives like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) or a regional railway network. These projects could significantly strengthen Jordan’s struggling economy, which would in turn help the government manage mounting domestic pressure and increase the durability of its partnerships in the region.

Finally, Israel and Jordan could work to revive the Israel-Jordan-UAE water-for-energy deal by involving other parties like the European Union, United Nations, or World Bank. Involving multilateral actors could help dilute the public perception of direct Israeli involvement, thereby easing domestic political sensitivities in Amman and increasing the deal’s viability. These steps would not only enhance regional stability and strengthen the existing Israel-Jordan relationship but also help King Abdullah II navigate mounting domestic unrest, economic strain, and regional security threats in an increasingly volatile Middle East.

Emily Milliken is the associate director of media and communications for the N7 Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

The post Jordan-Israel security cooperation continues quietly but unabated appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Beyond ceasefires: Reimagining stability and engagement in Libya

Karim Mezran and Roberta Maggi — Tue, 27 May 2025 13:16:56 +0000

The past fortnight has shattered perceptions of stability in Libya, unveiling deep fractures within its political, security and economic state and non-state apparatuses.

The May 12 assassination of Abdul Ghani al-Kikli, prominent leader of the Stability Support Apparatus (SSA), triggered large-scale urban confrontations between rival armed factions, but this came as no surprise. The escalation occurred against the backdrop of powerful semi-state armed factions, duplicated executive and legislative institutions alive long past their mandate, an absent judiciary, a nationwide economic crisis, and pervasive corruption. Coalitions formed on the basis of affiliations to the Government of National Unity (GNU) on one side, and Special Deterrence Force (SDF) on the other, drew in militants from Tripoli and beyond, bringing to light grievances and mistrust accumulated over years of fluid, ever-changing, short-term security arrangements and international neglect.

Indeed, the notion that the dual status quo could endure since the 2020 Ceasefire Agreement between the military factions of the then-Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) and the Benghazi-based Libyan Arab Armed Forces of Khalifa Haftar, with its multiplied leaders unchecked, can no longer hold in public discourse.

Countrywide divisions are also resurfacing as Tripoli grapples with its own, with chaos in Libya’s capital creating an ideal battleground for those seeking to achieve nationwide domination through military means.

Beyond the ballot box

Currently envisaged solutions to Libya’s crisis feel like a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Crisis appears to be brewing as tensions deepen and fears mount of further violent escalation in urban areas. The United Nations and the Presidency Council launched a truce committee to negotiate a local ceasefire and interim security arrangements in Tripoli, whose influence over peace enforcement in practice is, however, limited at best. At the same time, the House of Representatives, whose members were last elected in 2014 and have long overstayed their mandate, seized the opportunity of undermining the also-entrenched GNU and launched its own process for forming yet another executive.

The international push for elections in 2021 was seen as the most promising avenue towards stability. However, as the ballot box was never opened, the profound depth of Libya’s legitimacy crisis across all existing executive and legislative institutions perdures today. Indeed, no single individual or institution in Libya would be able to meaningfully bring the country to elections without due process and international backing. What’s more, any attempt at the implementation of new political arrangements amid the current escalation risks resulting in more violence, including towards civilians. Peace enforcement, therefore, rises to the front as the utmost imperative for the international community in the short term, while paving the way for a complete political overhaul in the medium term.

While it’s clear that an international agreement is needed to support Libyans in reversing current negative trends and overall escalation, no single external actor can be a viable mediator without multilateral backing. While in other contexts, the United Nations could consider deploying an international peacekeeping mission, permanent members’ interests at the Security Council amid changing Mediterranean geopolitics would likely lead to a deadlock and the use of veto power(s) for such an initiative. A way out of the current institutional blockage—Libyan and multilateral—must therefore rely on other pathways to multilateral cooperation.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

With the United Nations gridlocked and unilateral interventions only deepening Libya’s divides, the question of who, if anyone, could credibly enforce peace looms large. Egypt, despite its strategic clout and dual membership in the African Union and League of Arab States, is too closely aligned with eastern factions to lead. Turkey is disqualified on similar grounds, its deep entrenchment in Tripoli rendering it a partisan actor, despite recent meetings suggesting a possible rapprochement with Eastern factions. While symbolically inclusive, the Union for the Mediterranean lacks both Libya’s full participation and any enforcement teeth. The European Union, though equipped with resources, remains hamstrung by internal divisions and a migration-centric agenda. Meanwhile, the Security Working Group—gathering key Western and regional actors—has political weight but no mandate. As Libya’s instability never stays within its borders, its African and European neighbors remain most exposed to renewed spillovers, while none of the major external backers, from Russia to Turkey, ultimately benefit from continued escalation.

Breaking the stalemate

This begs the question: What might peace enforcement look like in Libya’s current politico-security landscape? The question is complex, given the internationalized nature of interest-based politics hampering Libya’s stability.

Given these limitations, few paths can be deemed viable for the weeks ahead. For the proponents of traditional multilateral approaches to peacebuilding, the most viable path forward may lie in a time-bound African Union-led initiative, co-endorsed by the League of Arab States, and supported by a coordinated diplomatic and operational role for the European Union and Egypt. The Security Working Group could serve as the core forum where such a framework is negotiated and designed, leveraging its existing membership and political clout. A hybrid mechanism of this kind, though likely to require extensive negotiations in its inception, could prove successful in beginning to reverse escalation and lay the groundwork for a more durable political—and peace—process.

For the proponents of rapid bilateral solutions, another path could be relying on a smaller coalition of involved States to intervene with the goal of keeping peace. A riskier but faster-to-deploy setup could for instance involve the likes of Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and a southern European State—one that is agreeable to the United States—in an interim entente of influence over Libyan stakeholders (and spoilers), each deterring them from further escalation until a new political process takes form.

While constraints faced may hamper its effectiveness, the United Nations and its support mission must remain central in any process, as the holders of Libya’s peace negotiations and guarantors of international legitimacy. Indeed, while both paths proposed may help break the current stalemate (albeit with different risk levels), they must be designed as a bridge, not an alternative, to a reinvigorated UN-led political track. Given the financial strain the UN system has faced in recent months, the proposed interim models could offer a much-needed breathing space to reassess, alongside key partners, the trajectory and structure of the process ahead.

Ultimately, Libyans must define the terms of their political future, which will require more than elections alone. With all major political institutions mired in crisis, a renewed approach could involve sequencing parliamentary elections first, under a model in which executive authority is shaped by parliamentary legitimacy. A technocratic, legitimacy-grounded constitution-writing process could then follow. Crucially, a new oversight phase must be introduced—one that is multilateral, time-bound, and rooted in local ownership—to shield the process from spoilers, prevent backroom power grabs, and guarantee that implementation matches intent. Only then can a political transition begin to gain the resilience Libya so urgently needs.

Karim Mezran is a Resident Senior Fellow and director of the North Africa Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Roberta Maggi is an Associate Fellow at the Center for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient (CARPO).

The post Beyond ceasefires: Reimagining stability and engagement in Libya appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Sapuppo quoted by Kyiv Independent on Putin’s ‘root causes’ claims

Mercedes Sapuppo — Tue, 27 May 2025 01:15:00 +0000

ORIGINAL SOURCE

On May 26, Mercedes Sapuppo, assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, was quoted in the Kyiv Independent on the “root causes” claimed by Russia for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

It’s very clear that the root cause for (Putin), really, is just Ukraine’s existence. This should make it clear to Western leaders that any agreements to end the war need to be very forward-looking when it comes to security guarantees.

Mercedes Sapuppo

Staff

Mercedes Sapuppo

Assistant Director

Eurasia Center

Belarus Civil Society

The post Sapuppo quoted by Kyiv Independent on Putin’s ‘root causes’ claims appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Murray in Politico Europe on Defense Finance in Europe

Atlantic Council — Mon, 26 May 2025 20:00:00 +0000

ORIGINAL sOURCE

On May 26, Rob Murray, non-resident senior fellow at Forward Defense and the Transatlantic Security Initiative, published a piece in Politico Europe on the proposed multilateral Defense, Security, and Resilience (DSR) Bank and the importance of defense financing mechanisms to boost European defense spending. Murray discussed the importance of the new Safety Action for Europe (SAFE) program and its potential benefits and argued for the creation of the DSR bank to help Europe achieve its security goals.

Fellow

Rob Murray

Forward Defense Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

Defense Industry Defense Policy

The post Murray in Politico Europe on Defense Finance in Europe appeared first on Atlantic Council.

What Trump’s new executive orders mean for the US nuclear energy industry

Jennifer T. Gordon — Sun, 25 May 2025 15:10:02 +0000

On Friday, US President Donald Trump signed four executive orders related to the rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies in the United States. Overall, the orders represent a policy outlook on nuclear energy that has remained relatively consistent for nearly a decade. However, there are a few key breaks from precedent, especially in that the orders encourage commercial nuclear fuel recycling and decrease the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

New reactors and national security

“Deploying Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security” is the most comprehensive of the four. It aims to speed the deployment of advanced reactors at Department of Defense facilities, in order to provide power for military installations and for operational energy. The executive order notes that the regulatory pathway will be through the United States Army and ambitiously calls for one reactor to be operational at a “domestic military base or installation no later than September 30, 2028.” It also calls for the deployment of advanced reactors at Department of Energy facilities, and it directs the US secretary of energy to designate artificial intelligence (AI) data centers that “are located at or operated in coordination with Department of Energy facilities . . . as critical defense facilities, where appropriate.”

In a departure from what has been the US government’s de facto stance toward commercial nuclear fuel recycling in the United States (assuming that it refers to commercial reactors), this order calls for the US secretary of energy to “identify all useful uranium and plutonium material within the Department of Energy’s inventories that may be recycled or processed into nuclear fuel for reactors in the United States.” There are currently no domestic commercial fuel recycling facilities in the United States, and the partnership outlined in this order between the Department of Energy and industry will likely be a boon to US reactor companies looking to use recycled fuel, especially as competitor countries stand up their own recycling capabilities. The order then goes on to direct the Department of Energy to provide high assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for commercial reactors that are authorized to deploy at the department’s sites. This will add to the demand signal for HALEU fuel and strengthen the domestic nuclear fuel supply chain.

Importantly, the order excludes the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for construction of advanced reactors on some federal sites. It also notes that there may be additional categories that will be excluded from adhering to NEPA. The Department of the Interior already has a number of categorical exclusions for NEPA (for example, for geothermal exploration) but does not yet have any listed for nuclear reactors. The rest of this order touches on interagency coordination, civil nuclear exports, and employee clearances.

Changes to the NRC

At first glance, the next executive order, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” appears more measured than news reports had predicted over the past few weeks. It mentions a reduction in force for the commission, but it notes that “certain functions may increase in size consistent with the policies in this order, including those devoted to new reactor licensing.” At the same time, the order directs the NRC to finalize a revision of its regulations and guidance documents, and this revision must be concluded within eighteen months. It also directs an eighteen-month deadline for final decisions on construction and operation applications for any type of nuclear reactor. It is difficult to see how an understaffed agency will be able to complete more work in less time.

Although the new executive order does not explicitly mention White House oversight of the NRC, it does note the involvement of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and especially the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in reorganizing the NRC. These measures, combined with the February 18 executive order “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies”—which already decreased the independence of the NRC—could likely reduce the NRC’s workforce and lessen its standing among global nuclear regulatory authorities. This could happen even as the White House directs it to hasten its regulatory processes to expedite the licensing and deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies.

The question of new testing

A third order, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,” directs the national laboratory system to reform its process for ensuring that reactor developers are able to test their reactors quickly and effectively. However, the document does not explicitly direct the national laboratory system to construct new test reactor facilities. The first Trump administration signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Capabilities Act in 2017, which addressed the need for a fast-neutron test reactor and resulted in the start of the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) project at Idaho National Laboratory.* But Congress later defunded this project. Although the new order does not explicitly call for the construction of a new testing facility, its direction to increase capacity for testing new reactors may lead Congress to look again at the VTR project.

The broader nuclear base

Finally, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” addresses well-trodden issues, such as workforce development and the restarting, completion, uprating, or construction of nuclear power plants. It also calls for a new report to address the fuel cycle, especially regarding high-level waste management, fuel recycling (including commercial recycling), isotopes, and enrichment and conversion. This new report would follow the Nuclear Fuel Working Group’s 2020 report “Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership,” which focused on the front-end of the fuel cycle as well as civil nuclear exports. The order also notes that the US secretary of energy shall update the department’s “excess uranium management policy to align with the policy objectives of this order and the Nuclear Fuel Security Act” of 2023, which was signed into law by US President Joe Biden.

Based on these new executive orders and earlier announcements, the second Trump administration’s policies toward nuclear energy seem largely aligned with the policies of the Biden administration and the first Trump administration. The major shift that is reflected in this set of executive orders is the desire to conduct a reduction in force across government agencies and to weaken the independence of regulatory authorities, including the NRC. In the new orders, the Trump administration has articulated ambitious goals for rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies; however, reducing personnel and funding for the NRC and the Department of Energy, along with weakening the NRC’s independence and global credibility, will make it challenging to realize the full potential of the US nuclear energy industry.

Jennifer T. Gordon is the director of the Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative and the Daniel B. Poneman chair for nuclear energy policy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

Note: The Idaho National Laboratory is a donor to the Atlantic Council’s Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative.

The post What Trump’s new executive orders mean for the US nuclear energy industry appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Panikoff joins CNN Newsroom to discuss Iran nuclear negotiations

mfatima — Fri, 23 May 2025 19:11:09 +0000

The post Panikoff joins CNN Newsroom to discuss Iran nuclear negotiations appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Beyond critical minerals: Capitalizing on the DRC’s vast opportunities

Fri, 23 May 2025 15:27:29 +0000

Download PDF

As the race for access to critical minerals accelerates—with US President Donald Trump declaring the minerals that power new technologies essential to US national security, and China flexing its control of mineral supply chains with export bans—the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is in the spotlight. But that light reveals a complicated picture: As major powers and neighboring states contend for access to the country’s tin, cobalt, and copper, the Rwandan-backed M23 paramilitary has seized control of large swaths of eastern Congo, and the specter of full-scale war looms. The DRC signed a minerals-for-infrastructure deal with China in 2007, and now a minerals-for-security or minerals-for-peace deal with the United States is in the offing.

The DRC has a chance to break the so-called “resource curse” and use its mineral wealth to build the roads, power grids, health infrastructure, and more that will sustain a democratic, economically growing country in the years ahead. Other countries and investors have a chance to live up to their commitments to responsible sourcing of natural resources, and in so doing support good governance and regional peace. The alternative is a continuation of the bad patterns of the past, with the real risk of a new outbreak of violence along the same fault lines that produced the deadliest conflict since World War II.

We asked six experts how the DRC—and its global partners—can take this transformative path. Read on for analyses of the country’s business environment, the industrial potential of its critical minerals and other promising sectors, and peace and security throughout the country.

The business case for peace and democracy in the DRC is strong

By Dave Peterson

Congo’s war and the critical minerals scramble are inextricably intertwined

By Mvemba Phezo Dizolele

Critical minerals won’t transform lives in the DRC—a radical shift in security and economic governance will

By Rabah Arezki

Partner perspective: The DRC’s vast potential extends beyond mining

By Thomas De Dreux-Brézé

US investors must lead on responsible sourcing in the DRC

By Nicole Namwezi Batumike

Better roads and stable power grids can unlock the DRC’s potential

By Calixte Ahokpossi

The business case for peace and democracy in the DRC is strong

Dave Peterson is the former senior director of the Africa Program of the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Rwandan-backed rebel militia M23 has seized control of most of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) while the national army (known by its French acronym, FARDC) and international peacekeepers retreat. At least seven thousand civilians have been killed and thousands more raped. Two million displaced persons and refugees are fleeing for safety, joining some five million already displaced. The US embassy in Kinshasa has been attacked by angry mobs—and both strategic interests and American values are at stake.

The DRC is rich. With 111 million inhabitants in a geographical area the size of Europe, the country is blessed (or cursed) by $24 trillion in mineral resources such as copper, cobalt, lithium, gold, and diamonds, much of it crucial to the world’s transition to electric power, half of it exported to China, and much of it now controlled by Chinese investors. Congo has the world’s largest tropical forests after the Amazon and a vast river network that could power half the African continent; it also has enormous agricultural potential, gas, and oil.

And the DRC is where the greatest slaughter of human beings since World War II occurred just thirty years ago, even as atrocities continue to be reported daily in the country’s east. In addition to M23, more than a hundred militia groups terrorize the population. Rampant corruption sucks billions of dollars from the economy every year, and poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, and disease statistics place the DRC near the bottom of global rankings.

The Congolese people have begged for change. Democratic elections held on December 20, 2023, were won by the incumbent, Felix Tshisekedi. Although flawed in many respects, credible domestic observation groups, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and others, concluded they reflected the will of the people. The elections were reasonably competitive and peaceful, a notable achievement compared to Congo’s nine neighbors, many among the most autocratic countries in the world. The elections raised the level of political discourse and further cultivated Congo’s democratic practice. Congo’s press is relatively free, so citizens can debate, organize, and criticize their government. The nation’s civil society is extensive, active, and skilled—advocating, educating, and mobilizing citizens on a host of issues.

Yet after another year in power, the second Tshisekedi administration has failed to resolve the conflict in the east, address rampant corruption, or improve governance. The human rights record is not reassuring, as NED’s Congolese partners and others have documented. More than one hundred kuluna, purportedly youth gang members ensnared by DRC’s notoriously corrupt justice system, were recently executed after the government reinstated the death penalty. Freedom of expression is also under pressure as activists, journalists, and whistleblowers are attacked and fear for their personal safety. Meanwhile, the president seems intent on tampering with the constitution to allow him to extend his term in office.

The mining companies, banks, and tech industry—aware of but loath to abandon the bloody supply chain they rely on—profit handsomely from Congo’s precious minerals. Although the conflict in the country’s east is about more than the trade in minerals, and international funders have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the problem, the DRC’s best hope may be for foreign investors to mobilize pressure on the belligerents to make peace. The Belgian government has investigated Apple for tolerating human rights abuses in its supply chain originating in the DRC, and Apple has acknowledged the difficulty of identifying the sources of its suppliers. Because this is an issue for the entire industry, companies should find it advantageous, both in terms of public relations as well as in creating a conducive business environment, to be more accountable for the stability and prosperity of the communities from which they derive their wealth.

The Trump administration is paying attention. Tenuous negotiations between representatives of the Congolese and Rwandan governments led by the administration’s special envoy Massad Boulos may be making progress. To buttress this, Congolese civil society should be included in the process, including appropriate NGOs, community groups, the church, labor, and business, as proved successful in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue two decades ago. The DRC’s democratic aspirations should be the United States’ comparative advantage. The United States made mistakes in Congo, then called Zaire, during the Cold War, to the detriment of its own reputation, and it would be a shame to return to that era of zero-sum geopolitical competition. Security, strength, and prosperity are interests every nation pursues, but the United States can do better. Many Congolese, including civil society and political leaders, still see the United States as a force for good and a beacon of hope for ideals such as freedom, peace, democracy, justice, and human rights. It is what makes America strong: It is what makes the United States friends and allies, accords America respect and admiration—to be seen as a world leader rather than just another player, a model rather than a pariah.

The US private sector should take the lead. A golden age cannot be built on the blood of innocents, a course that can only lead to more hatred and suffering and will ultimately fail. The international business community must unite in committing to resource extraction practices that abide by international standards of human rights and transparency, incentivize the rival governments and factions in the subregion to lay down their arms, and make it easier and more profitable for companies to do their work. The private sector can rally international public opinion and pave the way for stability and prosperity. The long-suffering Congolese people deserve it.

Congo’s war and the critical minerals scramble are inextricably intertwined

Mvemba Phezo Dizolele is a senior fellow and director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC.

For the past thirty years, the world has viewed the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo) through a binary lens of conflict and the exploitation of natural and mineral resources. The conflict optics magnify the insecurity that has characterized life in the eastern provinces of North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri. The protracted conflict between Congo and Rwanda spawned the proliferation of militias, including the two iterations of the Rwanda-backed M23, which captured the Congolese cities of Goma and Bukavu on January 25, 2025, and February 16, 2025, respectively. The death toll is estimated at more than seven thousand since January 2025, with unofficial reports from the region suggesting a much higher number of victims.

With 7.8 million internally displaced people, Congo ranks alongside Syria and Sudan among countries with the largest displaced populations, according to the United Nations. Of the more than two million people who have been displaced since the 2022 resurgence of M23, one million were displaced in 2024. Sexual violence, disappearances, and other human rights abuses have increased in M23-occupied areas. These abuses will continue as the rebels expand their territorial control.

Coverage of the conflict has also emphasized the role of natural and mineral resources as drivers of the war. Congo’s resource endowment is valued at a staggering $24 trillion. Analyses of the war have focused on the looting and smuggling of minerals, and have pointed to Rwanda and Uganda as primary beneficiaries. The two countries have emerged as major exporters of minerals, such as gold and coltan, of which they have limited reserves.

Recently, heightened interest in Congo’s mineral resources has been driven, among other reasons, by the West’s determination to circumvent China and secure critical resources like cobalt, copper, and lithium. For instance, on February 18, 2024, the European Union (EU) signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Sustainable Raw Materials Value Chains with Rwanda. Even though the EU signed similar memoranda with Congo, Zambia, and Namibia, Rwanda’s case raised questions given the country’s troubled history with Congo concerning mineral resources. This history includes invading Congo, arming violent rebel groups, and smuggling minerals out of rebel-controlled territory.

The second element driving high-profile interest in the country’s mineral wealth is the Trump administration’s classification of critical minerals as vital to US national security. The pursuit of a US-Congo minerals-for-security deal underscores Washington’s increased interest in Congo’s mineral endowment. As the world waits to learn about the contours and substance of the contract and what the United States will offer Kinshasa, it’s worth taking stock of the current foreign investment landscape in the country.

China tops the list of major investors with important financial and technical commitments to Congo’s mining sector. Besides China, the other major players who have established significant footprints in the country include the EU and the United States.

China leads in the mining and infrastructure sectors

China’s investments in DRC focus on the mining sector, with major stakes in the cobalt and copper industries. The engagement stems from the 2008 Sicomines joint venture between Chinese companies (Sinohydro and China Railway Engineering Corporation) and the Congolese government. The venture is the foundation of the Congo-China cooperation. Originally valued at $9 billion, the deal is a minerals-for-infrastructure barter. After pushback from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and Congolese civil society organizations, the deal was renegotiated to $6 billion in 2009. In exchange for mining rights, China has financed infrastructure projects, including roads and hospitals. In 2024, Chinese infrastructure investment commitments were valued at $7 billion. Today, China is the largest investor in the country.

United States seeks minerals for national security

Until the advent of the second Trump administration, the United States showed little interest in DRC minerals and focused on the humanitarian challenges of the country. Western companies that secured mining deals often sold their holdings to the Chinese. With every Western business divestment, the Chinese increased their stake in Congo’s mining sector. The new policy change has generated interest for greater US-Congo cooperation. This minerals-focused change is supported by a robust diplomatic engagement that seeks to broker peace between Congo and Rwanda. The administration’s stated objective is to stabilize Congo and create the right conditions for investments in mining and infrastructure.

The new US approach is yielding early results. On May 6, 2025, California-based KoBold Metals and Australia-based AVZ Minerals reached an agreement for the former to acquire AVZ Minerals’ interests in the Manono lithium deposit in Congo. Billionaires Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos back KoBold. The agreement will enable the company to invest over one billion dollars to develop the lithium project.

It is difficult to evaluate the level of current US investments in Congo. US pledges of multi-billion-dollar investments depend on the promises of peace accords between Rwanda and Congo and related bilateral mineral agreements.

European Union focuses on ethical approach to critical minerals

European countries’ approach in Congo focuses on ethical sourcing and sustainability, which also include traceability of minerals due to armed conflict. European development banks have funded projects that improve governance and reduce poverty. Some of these initiatives, however, have faced criticism. For instance, in light of the resurgence of M23, the February 18, 2024, memorandum the EU signed with Rwanda—“establishing close cooperation with Rwanda” on the sourcing of critical minerals—has raised questions about the EU’s commitment to ethical sourcing, given that Rwanda backs the violent M23 paramilitary group. Analysts of the Great Lakes region, diplomats, and members of the European Parliament have all questioned and challenged the intent and effect of the memorandum. Some see it as a driver of the re-emergence of the M23 and the current war between Congo and Rwanda.

Top European investors in Congo include France, the Netherlands, and Italy, who contributed a combined foreign direct investment stock of approximately $32.6 billion in 2022.

Comparative overview of investments

Country/Region	Key sectors	Notable investments
China	Mining, infrastructure	Sicomines Joint Venture, $7 billion in infrastructure
United States	Mining, diplomacy	KoBold Metals’ $1 billion in Manono project
European Union	Mining, development	€424 million grants to the partnership with the DRC (2021-24)

As the scramble for critical minerals enters a new phase with increased US interest in Congo, the country needs effective governance and transparent policies to ensure that foreign investments contribute to sustainable development and economic growth.

Critical minerals won’t transform lives in the DRC—a radical shift in security and economic governance will

Rabah Arezki is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Freedom and Prosperity Center. He previously served as chief economist and vice president for economic governance and knowledge management at the African Development Bank, as well as chief economist for the Middle East and North Africa region at the World Bank, and as chief of the commodities unit in the research department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s abundance of critical minerals has given rise to comparisons with Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth. But that abundance has not improved citizens’ lives in one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet there is a course that could make that possible: finding the right balance between openness to investments from multinational corporations and economic sovereignty—broadly defined as the ability of a country to control its own economic system.

The DRC is the repository of the world’s largest reserves of critical minerals such as cobalt, copper, and lithium. Indeed, the DRC holds around 70 percent and 60 percent of the world’s cobalt and lithium reserves, respectively, as well significant deposits of nickel and uranium, which are metal components for energy generation and batteries for electric vehicles. Yet the DRC encapsulates the seemingly insurmountable and intertwined challenges posed by critical minerals. These challenges are tied to geopolitics, conflicts, and the environment as well as economic and social dimensions.

First and foremost, the challenge facing the DRC is the new geopolitics around critical minerals. The demand for critical minerals is exploding. According to the International Energy Agency, demand for minerals is projected to increase by more than four times by 2040 amid the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Major powers—namely China, the United States, and the European Union—are engaged in a technological race spurring competition for access to these critical minerals. At the center of that global scramble is the DRC, which is being courted by these powers like never before. China is heavily invested in the mining sector of the DRC and controls the supply chains of critical minerals, including their processing.

Amid the technological race, China has recently imposed restrictions on exports of critical minerals to the United States. Washington and Brussels have tried to challenge Beijing’s monopoly of the supply chains of these minerals by attempting to secure mining contracts, including in the DRC. That competition should in principle help the DRC to not only get a fair share from the mining contracts but also the opportunity to move up the value chain. In practice, multinational corporations and foreign governments have much stronger capacity in negotiating mining contracts relative to the government of the DRC. Quid pro quos are also common involving the receipt of aid packages originating from self-interested donor countries in exchange for the awarding of mining contracts to multinational corporations—linked to donors.

Another major challenge for the DRC is conflict. The DRC is faced with external and internal conflicts. The DRC has a complex history: Once known as the Belgian Congo, it experienced a cruel form of colonization as the de facto personal property of Leopold II, Belgium’s king. The DRC’s post-independence era was plagued by direct interventions by foreign powers and autocratic rulers. That history helps explain the DRC’s deficient institutions, a persistent low level of trust among citizens, and distrust between the citizenry and the government.

The DRC has long faced massive violence and crimes in mineral-rich provinces such as Katanga and North Kivu—fueled by neighbors such as Rwanda and Uganda. The advances of Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in eastern Congo is alarming for the DRC and could fuel a “major continental conflict.” The Trump administration is actively pushing for a peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda to end the violence. This peace deal appears to be contingent upon the two countries each signing a bilateral economic agreement with the United States involving mineral extraction and processing. The peace negotiations are at an early stage, but these efforts are welcome especially if they lead to an outcome perceived as just.

Minerals are routinely smuggled out of the DRC. Add to that illicit artisanal mining—mining done, generally on a small scale and with low-tech tools, by individuals not employed by a mining company—as a tug of war between the authorities and citizens directly grabbing minerals. As a vast territory, it is imperative for the DRC to expand and strengthen the governance of its security sector to secure its borders and confront armed groups operating on its territory. The DRC is nominally a centralized republic, and it needs to find the right balance for revenue sharing between the different provinces and the central government to reduce internal tensions.

Further, the extraction of critical minerals is leading to significant environmental and health hazards. Indeed, extraction is often associated with deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and the use of toxic chemicals (including mercury), which are polluting ground water sources. Add to that child labor in the extraction of critical minerals, with children and women facing health degradation and abuse. The weak enforcement of environmental and social standards in the DRC is very concerning. A global debate is raging over the boycott of critical minerals emanating from zones of conflicts and forced labor. These boycotts alone are unlikely to sway the DRC’s government to do right by its citizens, but multinational corporations and foreign governments may be more susceptible to pressure.

These multifaceted challenges may seem insurmountable, but that should not deter the government of the DRC. To confront these challenges, the DRC must find a balance between outward- and inward-facing institutions. On the outward-facing front, the government needs to get its fair share of revenues from the extraction of minerals and attract investment in processing domestically. To do so, the government needs to deploy utmost transparency in its dealing with multinational corporations and foster the right human capital to match the capacity on the other side.

On the inward-facing front, the DRC needs to also ensure it is redistributing the proceeds of the revenues from the extraction of critical minerals to its citizens to ensure economic justice. To do so, the government of DRC needs to improve the allocative and technical efficiency of its spending. The government of DRC should pursue further its local content policy (designed to ensure that extractive industrial activity benefits the region where the resources are found) by localizing the processing of critical minerals. A useful example is the case of Botswana, which acquired a 15 percent stake in the world’s biggest diamond miner, DeBeers, which helped lock in local diamond-cutting activities.

This would represent a radical system shift in the DRC’s economic governance apparatus—and such a shift is imperative, in security as well as economic governance. Without that radical shift, the benefits of critical minerals won’t reach the people of the DRC. The Trump administration peace proposal could provide a pathway to a just peace and security between DRC and its neighbors, most notably Rwanda.

Partner perspective: The DRC’s vast potential extends beyond mining

Thomas De Dreux-Brézé is director of strategy development at Rawbank, the DRC’s largest bank. He manages relations with international partners (fundraising, co-financing, syndication, etc.) and intrapreneurial projects. Rawbank supports the work of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center on the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The DRC is a land of untapped scale and promise. At the heart of Africa, where mining remains the backbone of the economy, the DRC is endowed with abundant natural wealth, a youthful and dynamic population, and a pivotal geographical position—holding many of the critical ingredients for large-scale economic transformation. While it faces undeniable structural challenges, political instability, infrastructure deficits, and regulatory complexity, these should not obscure the deeper truth: The DRC is a country in motion, with massive potential across multiple sectors.

As the global economic landscape shifts, marked by the rise of emerging markets, regional trade integration, and the acceleration of sustainable investments, the DRC stands out with compelling opportunities, particularly in energy, agriculture, climate finance, financial services, and intra-African trade. Realizing these prospects will require strategic vision, strong partnerships, and patient capital. But the potential returns—economic, social, and geopolitical—could be transformative, not only for the Congo but for the continent as a whole.

The energy sector as a pillar of transformation

No sustainable development is possible without access to affordable and reliable energy. And in this field, the DRC stands out as one of the world’s most promising frontiers.

The Congo River, the second largest in the world by discharge, holds a staggering 100 gigawatts (GW) of hydropower potential. Yet only a fraction of that is currently harnessed. Similarly, solar and wind energy remain vastly underexploited, even though recent studies suggest the country could generate up to 85 GW from renewable sources at competitive prices.

This untapped capacity offers a double dividend: powering domestic industries and households, while positioning the DRC as a regional supplier of green energy. Existing projects signal the way forward, including the rehabilitation of the Inga I and II dams, off-grid solar initiatives in eastern provinces, and hybrid minigrid pilots supported by international development banks.

But unlocking this sector will require not only investment in generation, but a massive expansion of transmission infrastructure, regional interconnections, and regulatory reform. If done right, the DRC could emerge not just as an energy consumer, but as a green energy champion for Africa.

Monetizing the Congo Basin’s ecological wealth

In the global climate equation, the Congo Basin is a critical wilderness area. As the second-largest rainforest on the planet, it captures an estimated 1.5 billion tons of CO₂ annually, roughly equivalent to the emissions of the entire European Union.

Because 70 percent of this vast rainforest is located within the DRC, the country has a unique role to play in planetary stabilization. But that role must be backed by economic value. A well-regulated carbon market—anchored in strong institutions, reliable measurement systems, and transparent benefit sharing—could become a vital source of revenue for the state and local communities.

The groundwork exists. The Blue Fund for the Congo Basin, the Presidential Climate Finance Task Force, and recent bilateral discussions with major carbon-credit buyers (Shell, Vitol, Engie, Microsoft, Amazon, the World Bank, Delta Air Lines, Netflix, Eni, etc.) demonstrate momentum. What’s needed now is acceleration: a national registry of credits, clear legal frameworks, and partnerships with credible certifiers.

Done properly, the DRC’s ecological stewardship can become a global public good, monetized fairly and reinvested in national development.

Agriculture as a national priority

Few countries possess agricultural potential on the scale of the DRC. With over eighty million hectares of arable land, most of it untouched, and a rapidly growing population projected to double by 2050, the DRC could become a major agricultural exporter and a driver of food security across the continent.

And yet, paradoxically, it remains a net food importer. The reasons are well known: fragmented value chains, poor logistics, lack of mechanization, and security concerns in the east.

But the opportunity is immense. Investments in agricultural technology, cold storage, rural roads, and access to inputs could lift yields dramatically. Initiatives like the revitalization of coffee cooperatives in South Kivu or the expansion of community irrigation systems in Kwilu show what is possible when technology, capital, and local know-how align.

In parallel, creating agricultural growth corridors and establishing specialized export zones would allow Congolese products (such as coffee, cocoa, rice, and cassava) to reach regional and global markets. Agriculture is not only about feeding people—it is about creating jobs, increasing exports, and building rural resilience.

Unlocking financial inclusion in a young, digital nation

The DRC’s demographic reality is its most powerful asset: a young, urbanizing population with rising aspirations and digital adoption. Yet financial inclusion remains stubbornly low. Less than 10 percent of the population has access to traditional banking and overall inclusion stands at around 38.5 percent.

This gap is a massive opportunity. The fintech revolution is already reshaping access to financial services. And in the DRC, local innovators are leading the charge.

The next frontier is to bridge fintech and formal banking: enabling savings, credit, insurance, and investment products through digital rails. Partnerships between fintech companies, microfinance institutions, and mobile operators will be key to scaling impact.

To catalyze the sector, regulators must continue building trust—ensuring data privacy, protecting consumers, and clarifying tax regimes. Financial services are not just about transactions, they are about empowering people, fueling enterprise, and driving shared prosperity.

The DRC as continental logistics hub

With nine borders and a landmass larger than Western Europe, the DRC is uniquely positioned to become a continental logistics hub. Its central location offers a direct line to West, East, and southern Africa—and with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) gaining traction, this position becomes even more valuable.

Realizing this potential requires hard and soft infrastructure alike. The development of the Lobito Corridor,* connecting the DRC and Zambia to Angola’s Atlantic coast, offers a cost-effective route to global markets. Investments in rail, roads, dry ports, and customs harmonization are already underway, supported by major global and regional institutions.

Beyond Lobito, projects such as the modernization of the Matadi-Kinshasa corridor and the establishment of special economic zones along border areas can spur regional supply chains, particularly in agriculture, textiles, and energy services.

Trade is not only about exporting but also about integrating into African value chains, reducing transaction costs, and creating cross-border prosperity. The DRC’s geography is its destiny—if paired with the right vision.

The case for confidence

To invest in the DRC today is not an act of charity or risk appetite. It is an act of strategic foresight.

Few countries offer such a rare blend of demographic dynamism, natural abundance, and regional leverage. The fundamentals are compelling, the reform trajectory is positive, and the appetite for change is growing in both the public and private sectors.

The international community (investors, development partners, entrepreneurs, etc.) has a role to play, not in prescribing solutions, but in cocreating a new development model with the Congolese people. One rooted in inclusivity, sustainability, and shared prosperity.

The DRC is not waiting to be discovered. It is asserting its place in the twenty-first century. Those who choose to walk alongside it today will not only unlock significant returns but also help write one of the most important economic success stories of our time.

US investors must lead on responsible sourcing in the DRC

Nicole Namwezi Batumike is a gender and responsible sourcing specialist at the Congolese nonprofit Panzi Foundation.

The ongoing conversations between the United States and the DRC over access to critical minerals present a rare and urgent opportunity to reset the terms of engagement with Congolese stakeholders and the broader mineral ecosystem. US officials have indicated that American and other Western companies are prepared to make multi-billion-dollar investments in the region once the bilateral mineral deals are finalized. The DRC holds vast reserves of cobalt, copper, and other strategic minerals essential to global technological and energy systems, yet for decades, the Congolese people have borne the costs of extraction without sharing in its benefits, treated as collateral in deals driven by geopolitical rivalries and elite bargains. On top of fueling instability and deepening marginalization, these transactional arrangements have also exposed investors to growing legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Experience shows that when mining fails to deliver value to local communities, companies lose their social license to operate, along with the legitimacy of the regimes they once depended on. In turn, those regimes have proven willing to shift allegiances in pursuit of regime security. The DRC, for example, has filed lawsuits against downstream tech giants and pushed for sanctions targeting neighboring countries laundering conflict minerals. It is increasingly clear that the Congolese regime is not bound to any single partner.

US engagement in Africa must reflect geopolitical realities. Recent peace deal discussions show the United States is willing to engage Rwanda’s refining sector—despite Kigali’s documented role in violating Congolese sovereignty and committing war crimes. If responsible sourcing is to truly guide stable engagements, policymakers must reckon with the risks of endorsing impunity and failing to deliver justice for the Congolese people.

The negotiation of a US-DRC mineral deal offers a crucial opportunity to break this cycle, provided Kinshasa resists the historical pattern of leveraging minerals solely for regime survival, and provided the United States supports a model of genuine security: one not rooted in a logic of extractivism but in mutual accountability and the rule of law. By aligning US investment strategy with Congolese legal frameworks and responsible sourcing standards, both countries can lower risks by forging a sustainable model.

Responsible sourcing is a legal and strategic imperative

Meeting international due diligence standards to ensure that a given business activity does not involve human-rights violations has shifted from being a reputational safeguard to a legal and strategic requirement. Standards include the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Human rights due diligence is now codified through laws such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, France’s Duty of Vigilance Law, and Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, making risk mitigation binding across global operations, especially in high-risk contexts like the DRC.

Yet despite these frameworks, the DRC remains at war, and the global minerals trade continues to serve short-term political and economic agendas. In 2024, the US Government Accountability Office reported that Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act (America’s flagship due diligence law) had not reduced violence in eastern Congo and may have exacerbated conflict around artisanal gold-mining sites. The US government’s insistence on better outcomes demonstrates that due diligence is a means, not an end, and it cannot resolve the structural drivers of the conflict.

The DRC’s mining codes provide a responsible framework for US investors

It is in this context that the DRC’s 2018 mining code emerges not as an obstacle but as a strategic foundation. On top of aligning closely with international expectations for human rights due diligence, the code offers investors and companies a clear, locally grounded framework to manage risk and build sustainable partnerships. Born out of years marked by revenue leakage, extractive impunity, and donor-driven liberalization, the code reasserts the government’s dual roles as a regulator and shareholder while mandating local beneficiation (a part of mineral processing). It raises royalty rates on strategic minerals like cobalt, introduces a “super-profits” tax, and makes community development contributions legally binding. It also restricts the use of “stabilization clauses,” which limit countries’ ability to apply new regulations to investors with agreements signed before the regulations went into effect, and strengthens environmental and social accountability.

Pilot models offer early lessons in responsible sourcing. For example, at Mutoshi in the Lualaba province, the collaboration of multinational commodities group Trafigura with Chemaf, a Congolese company, and Pact, an international nonprofit organization, showed that formalizing artisanal mining not only met sourcing commitments but also helped contribute to de-risking efforts. Meanwhile, the Panzi Foundation’s Green Mining Community Model, an initiative led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Denis Mukwege, links inclusive training in responsible sourcing and value addition with investments in essential infrastructure like health and education. By seeking to address the root causes of conflict and the violent tactics it enables—such as the use of rape as a weapon of war—the Green Mining Community model promotes integration and community empowerment, positioning responsible sourcing as a pathway to long-term stability and shared value.

Opportunities and challenges in the US policy landscape

The United States is on the path to establishing promising policies and frameworks for responsible investment, as demonstrated by the bipartisan BRIDGE to DRC Act, which emphasizes governance and transparency. Initiatives such as the US-backed expansion of the Lobito Corridor* linking the DRC to Angola’s Lobito port, alongside previous efforts like USAID’s Just Gold project, could provide a strong foundation. However, their long-term impact will depend on aligning with fair labor and environmental standards, sustainable development, and, importantly, the continuity of these efforts under the new administration.

At the same time, setbacks like the 180-day suspension of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement must be urgently addressed. Restoring accountability is essential for ethical investment.

As US Rep. Sara Jacobs highlighted in a March 2025 Africa Subcommittee hearing, investments will only succeed in the long term if they do not ignore the root causes of exploitation.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo stands at a pivotal juncture: either the cycle of extractive exploitation continues, or the government leverages its mineral wealth to foster long-term development. For US stakeholders, the way forward lies in transparent, law-abiding, and community-centered partnerships. This requires a commitment to the DRC’s 2018 Mining Code and collaboration with Congolese civil society. While short-term gains may be tempting, only those who embrace responsible sourcing and inclusive models will build sustainable, competitive advantages.

Better roads and stable power grids can unlock the DRC’s potential

Calixte Ahokpossi is mission chief, Democratic Republic of the Congo, for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has vast economic potential, but infrastructure gaps remain a major constraint. The country is rich in natural resources and has a large and young population that could drive its development. However, chronic underinvestment in critical infrastructure—roads, rail networks, and power generation—continues to stifle economic progress. Additionally, governance challenges, corruption, macroeconomic instability, and recurring shocks—including armed conflicts in its eastern region—exacerbate fragility.

Addressing these challenges requires tackling their sociopolitical and economic roots, while leveraging the country’s vast natural resource wealth to rapidly bridge the infrastructure gap and foster diversified and sustained economic growth and poverty reduction. The DRC needs an ambitious infrastructure agenda, prioritizing the development of transport corridors and stable power grids.

Weak, unevenly distributed infrastructure

The DRC’s road network is severely underdeveloped, limiting mobility and trade. With only 152,400 kilometers (km) of roads, connectivity remains a challenge. The roads serve the nation’s vast 2.45 million km² territory, a road-to-territory ratio that is just 40 percent of the sub-Saharan African average of 0.14 km/ km², which is already low compared to other regions. Fewer than 10 percent of these roads are passable year-round, and more than half of Congolese (54.5 percent) must travel over an hour to reach a paved or asphalted road. Urban-rural disparities are stark. In the southeast (Haut-Katanga and Lualaba), large-scale copper and cobalt mining has spurred some investment in roads and rail lines, but the transportation infrastructure remains vastly insufficient for a region that supplies most of the world’s cobalt and a significant share of global copper. Indeed, the DRC accounts for over 70 percent of global cobalt output and approximately half the world’s proven reserves. In contrast, the eastern provinces (North and South Kivu, Ituri)—rich in gold and the “3T” minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten)—receive minimal investment, as small-scale artisanal mining dominates, offering limited economic spillovers.

The DRC remains one of the least electrified nations despite vast hydropower potential. Only 19.1 percent of the population has access to electricity, with rural coverage plummeting to a mere 2 percent. The country is heavily dependent on two aging hydropower plants: Inga 1 (with an installed capacity of 351 megawatts) and Inga 2 (installed capacity of 1,424 MW), both under rehabilitation and operating at roughly 80 percent capacity. These plants primarily serve the mining industry. Ambitious projects like Inga 3 (3,000 to 11,000 MW) and the even larger Grand Inga (which could surpass China’s Three Gorges Dam) underscore the Congo River’s vast potential. Yet delays, shifting international partnerships, and environmental concerns have repeatedly stalled construction.

A barrier to inclusive growth

Weak infrastructure inflates costs, constrains businesses, and fosters economic disparities. Poor infrastructure raises transportation and production costs, stifling economic activity in time-sensitive sectors (like perishable goods). This is evident in agriculture, which employs the majority of Congolese (over 60 percent of the labor force). Despite the DRC’s fertile land, poor transport links prevent farmers from bringing their surplus produce to markets. Goods perish on farms, and the country remains dependent on food imports, making it vulnerable to global food price shocks and exchange rate fluctuations. These disruptions fuel inflation, disproportionately affecting the poorest. The weak transportation network also restricts economic diversification and limits access to remote mineral deposits, leaving critical resources untapped—or controlled by armed groups.

Unreliable energy supply disrupts businesses and limits opportunities for local transformation and adding value. From irrigation systems to medical clinics, power shortages affect essential activities and reinforce a cycle of poverty and missed opportunities. They also hamper industrialization, making local mineral processing, manufacturing, and daily business operations difficult or virtually impossible. Mining companies report that frequent power shortages force them to rely on diesel generators, raising production costs substantially. This inefficiency hits small businesses even harder, eroding profit margins and reducing corporate income tax revenues. Under these conditions, the DRC’s ambition to increase local mineral processing and move up the value chain remains a major challenge.

Five steps to good roads, reliable power, and economic growth

Invest in transport and energy infrastructure to generate sustainable growth. The DRC’s vast mineral wealth and energy potential make it an attractive destination for large-scale private investment, but various bottlenecks such as infrastructure, business environment, and governance must be addressed. We focus here on infrastructure ones. Unlocking the hydropower potential (100,000 MW, which is 13 percent of the world’s total) could meet domestic needs and generate export revenue. Modernizing existing hydroelectric facilities and expanding transmission grids would provide clean, affordable electricity to both industry and households. For the mining sector, improved energy access could lower production costs while enhancing compliance with global environmental, social, and governance standards. Meanwhile, broader electrification would fuel local enterprise, boost economic diversification, and improve living standards.
Diversify financing for the substantial investments needed to bridge the infrastructure gap. The International Monetary Fund estimates that achieving universal electricity access would require annual spending of 5.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while ensuring that 75 percent of the population lives within two kilometers of an all-season road would necessitate 14.9 percent of GDP annually over ten years. Given these costs, leveraging diversified public, private, and international financing is key to accelerating infrastructure development.
Strengthen public investment management to maximize returns. Weak governance and public investment management have led to waste, corruption risks, and substandard project execution. Strengthening investment governance would maximize value for money, boosting private-sector confidence and investment. Equally key is creating fiscal space for critical infrastructure and social and human capital investments. This requires improving domestic tax and nontax revenue collection and prioritizing growth-enhancing spending. Yet low revenue collection, especially relative to peer countries and the DRC’s economic potential, remains a major constraint.
Pursue prudent, strategic government borrowing to secure favorable terms. Domestically, containing inflation would lower borrowing costs and encourage higher domestic savings, strengthening the local financial market. Externally, the focus should remain on concessional financing, prioritizing low-cost, long-term loans. Over time, as policy credibility strengthens and the country’s creditworthiness improves, access to international financial markets could be considered, particularly when global conditions are favorable.
Scale up infrastructure investments through regional partnerships. The DRC would benefit from harnessing regional frameworks such as the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community to mobilize resources for transport and energy infrastructure. Cross-border energy grids and trade corridors can reduce operational costs, attract larger financing and enhance the country’s global competitiveness. Regional collaboration offers a pragmatic solution to tackling infrastructure deficits while strengthening economic resilience. Also, the development of the Lobito Corridor,* linking the DRC to Angola’s Lobito port, can deepen regional integration and offer more cost-effective transportation routes for DRC’s exports—though it will be important to avoid undermining parallel port development projects in the western part of the DRC.

In sum, the future of the DRC will be promising if its development challenges can be addressed in an ambitious and realistic manner. Developing a reliable road network and extending electricity provision will be critical to reap the DRC’s vast potential—and will need to be supported by sound macroeconomic policies and reforms to strengthen the country’s resilience to overcome its fragility.

Launched in 2022, the Africa Center’s programming on the DRC seeks to advise on securing the country’s governance and to raise awareness of the economic opportunities in the DRC. In partnership with Rawbank, the Africa Center analyzes the DRC’s business environment, the industrial potential of its critical minerals, and peace and security throughout the country.

*Rawbank, which supports the Atlantic Council Africa Center’s work on the Democratic Republic of Congo, has an equity stake in the Africa Finance Corporation, which leads the development of the Lobito Corridor.

Explore the program

Kimberly Donovan: Sanctions are a powerful, yet slow-burning tool

The post Beyond critical minerals: Capitalizing on the DRC’s vast opportunities appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Gulf is emerging as Washington’s new strategic anchor

Joze Pelayo — Fri, 23 May 2025 15:16:50 +0000

On his landmark visit to the Gulf last week, US President Donald Trump declared in Saudi Arabia that he has “launched the Golden Age of America.”

He added, “the Golden Age of the Middle East can proceed right alongside of us.”

With vast sovereign wealth funds and fast centralized leadership for quick decision-making, the Gulf—primarily Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—has become the most attractive foreign partners for the US president.

Trump’s 2025 visit follows a familiar pattern compared to his first term, where he also began his first major diplomatic visit in Riyadh. But this time, the trip’s reach and scope expanded to much broader horizons. Unlike his first Gulf trip in 2017, where the majority of the deals focused on defense, this visit signaled a realignment centered on tech-forward partnerships and putting the Gulf at the core of a new kind of relationship driven by economic return and shared strategic concerns (preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and countering its regional influence, preserving regional stability, and securing energy markets and maritime routes, among others).

The trip also reflects a more intentional US pivot to the Gulf, especially given the key role the region can play in the technological world, the next battlefront between the United States and China. In the president’s global hierarchy, the Gulf is the new business frontier.

This pivot by the US president, in lieu of anchoring US strategy in traditional alliances such as the United Kingdom or Israel, suggests a new alignment with resource-rich, stable partners who can offer transactional stability in governance and significant return on investments.

This US “Golden Age” for the Gulf is one rooted in strategic utility, equal footing, high-stakes deals, and fewer strings. This Trump doctrine focuses more on regional return-on-investment and less on democratization. This resonates more with Gulf leaders’ preferences and acknowledges their agency as architects for the region’s future, not just clients.

Paired with the optics and symbolism of skipping Israel, Trump’s approach could signal a more pragmatic regional posturing that no longer places Israel at the center of Washington’s regional relations when it doesn’t serve US interests. Gulf capitals no longer serve as bases to project US power, but as strategic anchors in Washington’s foreign policy goals.

Tech-forward trade at the frontline of US-China competition

The visit’s focus on technology deals, contrasted against the defense focus of Trump’s 2017 trip, demonstrates this evolving US-Gulf dynamic and Washington’s increased effort to combat Beijing’s economic and trade encroachment in the region.

The US is rapidly adjusting to the post-unipolar world where China gains more influence, and competition for markets and strategic alliances is at full speed. Over the past few years, China has evolved from a technology importer into a global digital power, with state-backed tech giants such as Huawei, ZTE, and Alibaba Cloud rapidly expanding their digital footprint across the Gulf—including in critical infrastructure such as 5G networks and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled surveillance systems. Via its “Digital Silk Road” initiative, Beijing has offered Gulf countries technological solutions at the scale, speed, and turnkey financing they need.

China’s rapid advance in the Gulf reflects its broader ambitions to shape regional tech norms and digital governance frameworks. The embedding of Chinese platforms and systems into Gulf digital infrastructure poses long-term security challenges to further cooperation with the United States.

If Washington wants to compete with Beijing on emerging technologies, it is right to realign its Gulf strategy. The region is prioritizing its own artificial intelligence ambitions with its post-oil development agenda, and would be among the first to experience Washington’s burgeoning tech diplomacy and competition with Beijing.

Gulf leaders, for their part, will need to decide how to move forward with this upgraded partnership with Washington vis-à-vis China. They are likely to continue hedging to get the best deals from both countries.

Qatar’s positioning from major non-NATO ally to strategic partner?

Trump’s stop in Qatar—the first state visit by a US president to Doha—was an important recognition of the tiny Gulf country’s strategic positioning as a bridge across regional ideological divides, for example, when dealing with the Taliban. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also strategic partners in the region, and US presidents have visited them on multiple occasions, the visit to Doha marked a turning point in how the United States sees and engages Qatar.

The visit also highlighted the tiny country’s efforts to elevate its profile by gifting a Boeing 747 intended for the Air Force One fleet—a made-for-headlines move that underscored Qatar’s desire to make waves.”

May 15, 2025, Doha, Qatar: President Donald Trump walks towards Air Force One with Amir of Qatar Sheikh Tamin bin Hamad Al Thani at Al Udeid Air Force Base, Thursday, May 15, 2025. (Credit Image: Daniel Torok/White House/ZUMA Press Wire)

Trump’s Doha stop indeed facilitated the signing of significant deals, such as Qatar Airways’ purchase of 210 wide-body jets from Boeing aircraft, valued at approximately $96 billion—the largest in the company’s history, and defense agreements totaling nearly three billion dollars. The purchase lifted Boeing out of a significant crisis—not only helping one of the most iconic US manufacturers, but also reinforcing the administration’s narrative that its foreign deals can directly support US jobs and industries while keeping American-made aircraft competitive in the global stage.

Qatar’s decision to invest an additional ten billion dollars in Al Udeid, the largest US military hub in the Middle East, announced during Trump’s visit underscores the base’s strategic value to Qatar’s security and highlights it as a US ally that shares the burden of regional security with Washington—unlike other US partners, like in Europe, that Trump has accused of being defense free-riders.

The view from the Gulf

Regional analysts and the media have largely framed Trump’s visit as a reset to US foreign policy in the Middle East and a redefinition of regional leadership—one increasingly directed from Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi.

Badr al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, argues that the region welcomes the current shift away from legacy alignments with the Gulf.

“To those in the Gulf who thought that the only way to America was through Israel, now we see an opening where we can go directly to the States,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Mohammed Baharoon, Director General of the Dubai-based think tank B’huth, adds, “Trump sees in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) what China, India, and others are seeing there, which is its role as a mega connector.”

Hasan Alhasan of the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that the Gulf states “have managed to use their role as mediators to position themselves as indispensable partners for Trump’s political agenda.”

The message coming out of the region seems to be consistent: the Gulf is no longer a side player—it is now helping set and lead the agenda in the Middle East. This is also a reflection that most Gulf states want to shape regional and global dynamics (via sovereign wealth fund diplomacy, for example), seeing themselves as independent middle powers capable of carrying out complex diplomatic initiatives with full ownership, after decades of having external powers shape their geopolitical dynamics and mostly being hubs of power projection and support.

Is “America’s Golden Age” Gulf-aligned?

Given their strategic geography, significant financial resources, relatively permissive regulatory environments, and massive energy surpluses, Gulf states are likely to continue leading the way in becoming hubs for AI and emerging technologies. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, for example, are just a six to eight-hour flight from 80 percent of the world population, with over 170 million passengers each year transiting through their capitals.

The Gulf’s ability to deploy capital is poised to be a key in powering US AI infrastructure as energy demand is set to surge, and the Trump administration’s prioritization of the US-Gulf partnership should be commended.

The Trump administration is clearly signaling that it is not bound to traditional alliances. In this new world, Gulf states are emerging as key economic and political players in the region and internationally, vital to technology development as well as the US-China rivalry. Against this emerging backdrop, Washington has positioned itself accordingly.

Joze Pelayo is an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, where he manages the China-Middle East and the US-Gulf security cooperation portfolios.

The post The Gulf is emerging as Washington’s new strategic anchor appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Can the EU leverage economic pressure to broker a Gaza cease-fire?

Lize de Kruijf — Fri, 23 May 2025 13:05:12 +0000

The ongoing Israel-Gaza war has evolved into a highly politically complex and dire humanitarian conflict. With thousands of civilian casualties reported, the majority in Gaza, international calls for a cease-fire are intensifying. Efforts to broker a resolution have largely centered on US-led diplomacy, with most recent efforts including White House envoy Steve Witkoff’s new proposal aimed at securing a cease-fire and hostage release. Yet negotiations remain deadlocked following the collapse of a truce in March over Israeli demands for Hamas to disarm and for its leaders to go into exile. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, a key mediator, described the talks in Doha as hampered by “fundamental differences between parties.”

As diplomatic efforts falter, attention is turning to economic statecraft—the strategic use of trade and economic leverage to influence state behavior. The European Union (EU) and United States are Israel’s largest and second-largest trading partners, and any economic pressure they apply could have severe consequences for Israel’s economy. Already facing tariffs from the US, Israel may soon encounter additional pressure from the EU, which is considering its own economic measures.

In Europe, growing humanitarian concerns about the scale of destruction in Gaza have prompted calls to reevaluate the best strategy to manage the conflict. Notably, the humanitarian blockade and high-profile incidents, such as the deaths of fifteen aid workers during an Israeli special forces operation in Rafah—an event Israel attributed to “professional failures”—have intensified pressure for a more impactful response. There is a growing sentiment that new tools may be needed to influence the trajectory of the conflict.

Recently, Dutch Foreign Minister Casper Veldkamp called on the EU to investigate Israel’s compliance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which ties trade relations to respect for human rights and democratic principles. Veldkamp argued that, “The blockade violates international humanitarian law. You have the right to defend yourself, but the proportions now seem completely lost. We are drawing a line in the sand.”

Although Veldkamp faced domestic political backlash for his move, support across Europe appears to be growing. On May 20, the governments of the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Canada issued a joint statement urging Israel to halt its renewed offensive in Gaza. While reaffirming Israel’s right to defend itself, the statement described the current escalation as “wholly disproportionate.” In tandem, the UK suspended talks on expanding a free-trade agreement with Israel and announced additional sanctions on extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

Crucially, the majority of EU foreign ministers backed the Dutch proposal to review the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Their choice signals a potential turning point: the first serious momentum behind reevaluating a trade framework that underpins diplomatic and economic ties. Should the EU find Israel in breach of Article 2, it could suspend parts of the agreement or enact targeted economic penalties.

The implications are substantial. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 32 percent of Israel’s total trade in goods as of 2024, amounting to $48.25 billion. Services trade added another $29 billion, while bilateral foreign direct investment stands at over $134.8 billion. This underscores a deeply integrated economic relationship.

Despite the ongoing conflict, Israel has so far managed to maintain some level of macroeconomic stability. Debt levels are within sustainable bounds, credit worthiness remains intact, and the economy has continued to grow (albeit slowly). However, the economic toll of war is has been straining certain sectors disproportionately. The tech industry continues to grow, partially due to defense contracts, but construction has largely halted, agricultural sectors have lost critical labor, and tourism has plummeted. While gross domestic product growth has not entirely contracted, it slowed to around 1 percent in 2024. This was a significant drop from 6.5 percent in 2022, with the deceleration primarily driven by reduced exports. In response, the Israeli government has implemented budget adjustments that include cuts to domestic welfare programs—historically an area of generous spending—as it works to offset growing wartime expenditures.

Compounding these challenges, Prime Minister Netanyahu recently announced plans to eliminate Israel’s trade surplus with the United States—its second-largest trading partner—which amounted to $7.4 billion in 2024. While the move is framed as a gesture toward economic rebalancing and strengthening bilateral ties, it may carry domestic economic consequences. Efforts to narrow this surplus—especially in a climate of shifting global trade patterns and economic uncertainty—could dampen Israeli export growth and further expose the economy to external shocks.

The potential suspension or downgrading of EU-Israel trade ties would add significant pressure. Given the scale and interdependence of EU-Israel trade, such a move could affect Israel’s economic resilience and, by extension, its ability to sustain long-term military operations in Gaza.

While no approach guarantees a swift end to such a deeply entrenched conflict, economic statecraft presents a credible alternative to stalled diplomatic channels. Unlike traditional negotiations, which often falter due to uncompromising demands or ideological impasses, economic levers could alter the cost-benefit calculus of continued hostilities. A concerted and coordinated effort by major economic partners could incentivize compromise, creating a window for diplomacy to succeed.

The EU’s evolving posture may represent a strategic recalibration—one that leverages economic influence to encourage de-escalation while remaining anchored in international law and human rights norms. Whether this shift can yield tangible results remains to be seen, but it marks an important recognition: that intractable conflicts may require not just moral outrage or political pressure, but a strategic application of economic power.

Lize de Kruijf is a project assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Economic Statecraft Initiative.

EconoGraphics Feb 27, 2025

Could the EU “blocking statute” protect the ICC from US sanctions?

By Lize de Kruijf

The new US sanctions targeting ICC personnel could severely disrupt the Court’s operations—particularly if Dutch banks suspend financial services to the ICC out of fear of violating US sanctions.

Economic Sanctions Economy & Business

Econographics Mar 20, 2024

Global Sanctions Dashboard: How Hamas raises, uses, and moves money

By Kimberly Donovan, Maia Nikoladze, Ryan Murphy, and Alessandra Magazzino

How Hamas raises, uses, and moves money; How sanctions are used to counter Hamas and combat the financing of terrorism; Where governments align and diverge in their approaches to combat this activity.

Economic Sanctions European Union

Econographics Apr 17, 2025

Russia Sanctions Database

By Kimberly Donovan, Maia Nikoladze, Lize de Kruijf

The Atlantic Council’s Russia Sanctions Database tracks the level of coordination among Western allies in sanctioning Russian entities, individuals, vessels, and aircraft, and shows where gaps still remain.

Eastern Europe Economic Sanctions

Economic Statecraft Initiative

Housed within the GeoEconomics Center, the Economic Statecraft Initiative (ESI) publishes leading-edge research and analysis on sanctions and the use of economic power to achieve foreign policy objectives and protect national security interests.

Learn More

The post Can the EU leverage economic pressure to broker a Gaza cease-fire? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The case for a Three Seas Defense Innovation Hub

Justina Budginaite-Froehly — Thu, 22 May 2025 17:43:15 +0000

Since its launch ten years ago, the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) has established itself as a novel, network-driven platform that enhances north–south connectivity among thirteen European Union (EU) member states located between the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black seas. A large part of its success has been due to its narrow scope, namely connectivity across the energy, transport, and digital sectors. However, with mounting geopolitical pressure along Europe’s eastern flank, these same sectors in 3SI countries are increasingly targeted by hostile hybrid activities. To effectively address the evolving security challenges—particularly those aimed at critical energy, transport, and digital infrastructure—the 3SI should add defense innovation as another pillar of its mission.

By leveraging its existing strengths, the 3SI can accelerate the development and cross-border deployment of advanced security and defense technologies to help protect critical infrastructure. This would significantly bolster regional resilience and help deter threats operating in the “gray zone” between civilian and military domains. With shared threat perceptions and strategic alignment, 3SI member states—supported by key partners such as the United States, Germany, the European Commission, Japan, and Ukraine—are uniquely positioned to confront these challenges.

The best way for the 3SI to proceed is by creating a 3SI Defense Innovation Hub that cuts across the three existing pillars of energy, transport, and digital. Devoted to developing cutting-edge technologies for critical infrastructure protection, the 3SI Defense Innovation Hub would contribute to the much-needed paradigm shift in the overall approach to connectivity projects. It would do this by incorporating tools and processes for protection from the very outset of infrastructure planning.

Moreover, the 3SI Defense Innovation Hub could evolve into a key specialized critical infrastructure protection node within a broader allied defense innovation ecosystem, spanning from North America to Europe to the Indo-Pacific. In doing so, it could help serve as a strategic counterweight to the deepening defense-industrial cooperation and hybrid warfare efforts of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

A region under attack

Across the 3SI region, Russia-backed saboteurs have increasingly targeted energy infrastructure as part of hybrid campaigns aimed at undermining societal resilience and inflicting economic harm. Undersea pipelines and power cables in the Baltic Sea have suffered clandestine cuts and physical damage, prompting NATO and littoral states to launch dedicated missions to safeguard these vital links.

On land, arson attacks and hoax bomb threats, including waves of coordinated false alarms at Lithuanian schools, airports, and governmental institutions, have become widespread phenomena. While delivering no physical destruction, these false alarms incidents have strained security services and revealed gaps in crisis-response protocols.

In the transport domain, rail lines across the 3SI region and in Germany have been subject to sabotage attempts aimed at fracturing strategic north–south corridors. In addition, GPS jamming—likely from Russian electronic-warfare units in Kaliningrad—has repeatedly degraded navigation for commercial shipping and civilian flights in the Baltic Sea region. This jamming has forced in-flight diversions and resulted in aborted landings. Potentially more destructive planned attacks have thankfully been detected before being carried out. Earlier this month, for example, three men were arrested in an alleged Russia-linked plot to place parcels with explosives on cargo planes traveling from Europe to the United States and Canada.

The digital battlefield in 3SI countries has become equally contested. For example, cyberattacks have targeted governmental institutions in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Latvia, as well as energy-sector operators in Romania, exploiting unpatched systems to plant malware or launch distributed denial-of-service attacks. Chinese cargo and Russian “shadow fleet” vessels maneuvering in the Baltic Sea are suspected of cutting undersea data cables, as well, posing a threat to digital connectivity in the region.

Collectively, these hybrid threats expose the vulnerability of siloed infrastructure sectors and underscore the urgent need for the 3SI to integrate defense-grade innovations into its energy, transport, and digital development agenda.

Incorporating defense from the start

Critical civilian infrastructure in the energy, transport, and digital domains no longer exists in isolation from the military domain—the domains have merged into a single battlefield of resilience and readiness. Power grids and pipelines, once engineered solely for economic efficiency, must now be designed with embedded defensive features. This includes hardened control systems, automated isolation protocols, and redundant interconnects that can withstand kinetic strikes, physical impact, or cyber-enabled sabotage.

Likewise, north–south transport corridors can no longer be planned as purely commercial arteries: They must accommodate the rapid deployment of heavy armor, pre-positioned logistics modules, and secure communications nodes, all while deterring adversarial probes or hybrid ambushes.

This is the area in which the 3SI has already recognized its role, as evident in its 2024 Joint Declaration, which reaffirms the need to strengthen “the resilience of dual-use infrastructure in the region for enhanced civilian and military mobility along the North-South axis.” However, if established, the proposed 3SI Defense Innovation Hub should go further and offer solutions not only for upgrading new transport infrastructure for a dual civil-military use, but also for effectively protecting it from physical and cyber sabotage.

True resilience requires that innovation for the protection of critical infrastructure be integral to the earliest design and development phases of the 3SI’s infrastructure. An alternative, retrofitting “defense layers” onto critical infrastructure systems after their construction has been finalized, often creates significant security gaps and increases costs. It’s better to incorporate these aspects from the start.

The bigger picture

The 3SI’s broad partnership network—anchored by the United States, Germany, the European Commission, Japan, and enriched by Ukraine—provides an unparalleled foundation for extending its remit into defense innovation and contributing to the broader goal of transatlantic defense-industrial alignment.

With Russia’s war against Ukraine transforming the way war is fought and placing constant pressure on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, Europe must adapt its technologies and defense strategies to prepare to confront similar challenges. Learning from Ukraine, which, under constant attack, has become a real-time innovation lab for unmanned systems, energy resilience solutions, and rapid infrastructure repairs, is essential.

With Chinese coercion and sabotage around Taiwan posing similar threats to regional stability, it is clear that a broader adversarial strategy is at play. As the European and Indo-Pacific theaters become increasingly interconnected due to similar security challenges, it will be necessary for European countries, the United States, and democratic nations in the Indo-Pacific to align their responses.

In the meantime, the United States and the EU are searching for common ground in aligning their defense industries. However, tensions have persisted, particularly around new EU funding mechanisms, which are often perceived in Washington as favoring domestic European firms at the expense of transatlantic cooperation.

This is where the 3SI can play a pivotal role. By launching a Defense Innovation Hub focused on critical infrastructure protection, the 3SI could serve as a catalyst for deeper transatlantic defense-industrial alignment. Such a hub would help bridge regulatory, political, and operational gaps, offering a constructive step forward in building a truly interoperable, forward-leaning allied defense ecosystem in a common effort to outpace and out-innovate authoritarian challengers.

The way forward

The upcoming Croatian presidency of the 3SI in 2026—marking the tenth anniversary of the initiative’s inaugural summit in Dubrovnik—offers a timely opportunity to expand the initiative’s mission to include defense innovation.

Building on its success in infrastructure development, the 3SI should replicate its network-based model in the defense sector—pooling risk and capital among governments, private industry, and financial institutions. This would unlock dual-use innovation pipelines that are often too complex or costly for individual actors to pursue alone. The recently launched 3SI Innovation Fund offers a promising starting point for exploring sustainable financing mechanisms to support the activities of a potential 3SI Defense Innovation Hub.

As the geopolitical landscape grows more contested, the 3SI should evolve from a connectivity-focused platform into a strategic driver of allied resilience. A dedicated Defense Innovation Hub would make the 3SI a force multiplier for NATO and EU efforts—accelerating deterrence, deepening regional interoperability, and embedding security into the DNA of the eastern flank’s critical infrastructure while at the same time providing a much-needed push for a transatlantic defense-industrial alignment.

Justina Budginaite-Froehly is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center and Transatlantic Security Initiative within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

The post The case for a Three Seas Defense Innovation Hub appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Lebanon’s 1982 war reverberates in Israel’s Syria campaign

Sinan Hatahet — Thu, 22 May 2025 13:36:51 +0000

In the early hours of December 8, 2024, Israeli warplanes launched a wave of precision strikes across southern Syria, marking the start of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would later describe as a necessary preventive campaign aimed at “avoiding another October 7 scenario.”

At first glance, the ongoing Israeli intervention in Syria appears fundamentally different from Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Israel’s Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 was fundamentally reactive, while its stated motives today in Syria are largely preventative.

Yet, beneath the surface, the parallels are striking and warrant careful consideration to anticipate the long-term implications of Israel’s latest regional military venture. Reflecting upon Israel’s 1982 military venture in Lebanon offers essential insights for shaping its current strategy in Syria. Indeed, Israeli policymakers must reconsider their current path, shifting from a purely military-centric approach toward a more nuanced strategy combining diplomatic foresight, restraint, and targeted political engagement.

Preventive versus reactive war

Israel launched its 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon in response to escalating rocket and guerrilla attacks by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) against Israeli territory. This direct threat provided Israel a clear justification for military action, aiming explicitly to disrupt and dismantle the operational bases from which the PLO was attacking.

In Syria today, no factions have recently launched cross-border attacks against Israel, nor have local military actors significantly threatened Israeli territory from Syrian soil. Yet Netanyahu’s administration justifies its ongoing campaign by highlighting the risk posed by abandoned military assets left by Bashar al-Assad’s collapsed regime, arsenals potentially accessible to the current Syrian caretaker government led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Thus, the strategic calculus behind Israel’s intervention aims to eliminate perceived future threats, project military strength, and proactively establish strategic depth.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

The acquisition and control of strategic territorial assets represent another similarity between Israel’s past actions in Lebanon and its current operations in Syria, and the distinction between a preventive versus a reactive strategic calculus is blurred. In 1982, Israel sought control of key military and geographic assets such as Beaufort Castle, from where rocket attacks were previously launched, and the Litani River, a natural boundary enhancing its defensive position. Israel intended to create a buffer zone to insulate its northern territory from future aggression, ultimately holding southern Lebanon for nearly eighteen years before withdrawing under sustained pressure from Hezbollah.

Similarly, today, Israel is asserting its dominance over the demilitarized zones established under the 1974 ceasefire agreement and over the Syrian side of Mount Hermon, critical for its strategic oversight of Damascus. This high terrain offers invaluable surveillance advantages, enabling early detection of threats deep within Syrian territory. Given this strategic value, it is difficult to imagine Israel relinquishing control over such a significant asset without immense international or domestic pressures, a scenario reminiscent of southern Lebanon.

Civil defence members stand at a damaged site, after Israel carried out an air strike on the Syrian capital Damascus on Thursday, as reported by Syria’s state news agency, in Damascus, Syria March 13, 2025. REUTERS/Firas Makdesi

Yet, substantial differences exist between the operations, notably regarding military engagement. Israel’s 1982 invasion was primarily ground-based, characterized by intense urban warfare and heavy casualties, with 670 Israeli soldiers lost. Israel today enjoys unrivaled air superiority over Syrian airspace. This advantage allows the Israeli Air Force to neutralize any targets swiftly and precisely, avoiding direct engagement and minimizing casualties. Consequently, Israel currently operates with considerable strategic flexibility, unpressured by immediate military confrontation.

However, it is essential to note that Israel’s deliberate containment of its military engagement reflects a calculated choice rather than necessity. It currently faces no pressing ground threats within Syria that could justify escalation. This approach explains Israel’s adamant opposition to any significant redeployment of Syrian military forces or allied militias in Daraa, Suweida, and Quneitra. Any significant shift on the ground could force Israel into a more direct, costly ground campaign, fundamentally altering its military doctrine in Syria.

The challenge of allies and local dynamics

A critical dimension of Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon in the eighties was its alignment with local factions—namely, its support of Maronite Christians. This was exemplified by its backing of Bashir Gemayel’s presidential bid and the creation of proxy militias, such as the South Lebanon Army (SLA). However, Lebanon’s fragmented sectarian environment proved to be significantly more intricate than initially anticipated. The assassination of Bashir Gemayel highlighted the inherent risks and unintended consequences associated with Israel’s local alliances in adversary environments and serves as a cautionary example of the potential pitfalls Israel faces when pursuing similar alignments in Syria. Israel has engaged with the Druze community in southwestern Syria, aiming to establish a strategic buffer against potential threats. Yet, this policy has inadvertently heightened the vulnerability of the Druze community and notably contributed to perceptions of the group as a national adversary.

By contrast, Syria’s sectarian dynamics are more nuanced and resistant to such simplification. Although sectarian identities remain influential, the fragmentation and internal complexities within communities such as the Druze and Sunni populations complicate Israel’s attempts at forming reliable proxy relationships. While the Druze community of southern Syria, for example, is central to Israel’s declared narrative of protecting minorities, deep internal divisions render any potential alignment with Israel highly controversial and internally divisive.

Unlike in Lebanon, where Palestinians constituted an external and universally opposed actor within specific communities, Israel’s supposed adversaries in Syria represent indigenous social forces deeply embedded in the country’s fabric. Therefore, any sectarian or communal proxy strategy risks amplifying internal Syrian tensions without providing Israel a stable, long-term security advantage.

Another central feature of Israel’s 1982 Lebanon invasion was the clearly defined regional rivalry with Syria, which at the time acted as the primary regional opponent supporting Lebanese factions hostile to Israel. Syrian influence, bolstered indirectly by Iranian and Soviet backing, significantly impacted Israel’s strategic calculations, turning southern Lebanon into a complex geopolitical battleground.

Simultaneously, Iran’s role in post-Assad Syria today, although diminished, remains an essential factor to consider. Israel and Iran, despite deep-seated antagonism, paradoxically share an interest in preventing the consolidation of a centralized, Islamist-led government in Damascus. For Israel, the fear revolves around a potential “October 7” scenario, while for Iran, the objective is to maintain enough influence through instability to prevent a complete regional realignment toward Sunni-majority states such as Turkey and the Gulf. This overlapping interest inadvertently risks reviving Iranian influence in a chaotic, fragmented Syrian landscape, repeating precisely the scenario Israel aims to avoid.

The Turkey factor

While the direct Iranian military threat in Syria has significantly receded post-Assad, a new and perhaps more formidable actor has emerged, Turkey.

Unlike Syria’s indirect and often proxy-driven engagement in Lebanon, Turkey possesses advanced NATO-standard military capabilities, political sophistication, and clear strategic objectives aiming at regional leadership rather than mere disruption.

Crucially, Turkey’s policy contrasts sharply with the role Syria historically played in Lebanon. Syria aimed to weaken the Lebanese central authority, foster fragmentation, and exert dominance through local proxies. Turkey, conversely, has consistently supported efforts toward state centralization and governance restoration in post-Assad Syria, irrespective of the ruling faction. Ankara’s involvement focuses not on fostering factionalism but rather on strengthening the institutional and territorial integrity of the Syrian state, seeking stability rather than chaos. This difference significantly reshapes Israel’s strategic landscape.

Nevertheless, despite aiming to seek stability, the Turkish approach still presents complex geopolitical challenges for Israel. Ankara’s increased presence and potential influence in southern Syria could gradually complicate Israel’s air operations or limit its freedom of maneuver. Yet, notably, Turkey has so far avoided direct confrontation or escalation with Israel, favoring cautious diplomacy. This signals that while Israel must manage its military intervention carefully, Ankara’s current policy posture suggests that Turkish-Israeli relations will remain tense yet controlled, characterized more by rivalry than open conflict.

Long-term implications and historical lessons

First and foremost, Israel should approach its involvement in southern Syria with extreme caution regarding any form of prolonged military presence. History has shown repeatedly that indefinite occupation, even if initially limited, creates conditions ripe for resentment, insurgency, and protracted instability.

Despite the undeniable short-term military and intelligence advantages gained from occupying strategic territories, the Israeli presence risks gradually transforming from a stabilizing factor into a source of enduring hostility. This scenario mirrors precisely the Israeli experience in southern Lebanon, where the extended occupation cultivated resentment among the local population, ultimately empowering militant factions such as Hezbollah, who capitalized on Israel’s strategic vulnerabilities.

Indeed, Israel’s long-term security interests are better served by allowing the establishment of a stable government in Syria, even if led by factions or entities ideologically distinct from its traditional preferences. The emergence of coherent, accountable authorities capable of providing basic governance and security is paramount to preventing the re-emergence of violent extremism and cross-border threats. Although politically challenging, Israel must acknowledge that sustained stability and security along its northern frontier hinge significantly on Syria’s internal coherence rather than on Israeli military dominance alone. This shift requires a pragmatic willingness to tolerate credible governance frameworks in Syria that can effectively secure territory and limit extremist influence. Israel should militarily disengage and instead work through diplomatic initiatives and a credible peace-making process.

Moreover, effective stabilization in Syria demands comprehensive diplomatic coordination with regional and international stakeholders—primarily Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States, and European allies. Historically, Israel has often preferred unilateral action or limited coordination, believing it more directly serves its immediate security concerns. However, this narrow approach risks isolating Israel diplomatically and escalating unintended regional tensions. A cooperative regional diplomatic strategy can create a favorable geopolitical environment and align regional stakeholders behind common objectives of stability.

Such a strategy could involve Israel engaging discreetly with regional counterparts through informal track II diplomacy dialogues mediated by neutral third parties, notably leveraging its strategic relationship with the United States. Despite existing geopolitical competition, engaging proactively with Turkey is especially critical given Ankara’s growing regional influence and significant military capabilities. Specifically, Israel could initiate security-focused talks with Turkey through US-brokered dialogues to manage mutual security concerns, establish protocols to prevent unintended military escalations, and explore shared interests in limiting Iranian influence and extremist threats.

Another crucial dimension of Israel’s strategic recalibration involves carefully managing Syria’s sectarian and communal landscape. Israel must avoid the temptation to exploit sectarian divisions, as these efforts invariably foster internal conflicts and deepen societal fragmentation. Attempts to manipulate these internal divisions may provide short-term tactical advantages but will likely yield adverse long-term consequences, undermining regional security and stability. Instead, Israeli policymakers should adopt a policy of cautious neutrality toward sectarian dynamics rather than fueling further communal polarization.

Finally, Israel must grapple proactively with the underlying geopolitical threat of a potential Iranian resurgence within Syria, particularly in scenarios characterized by chronic instability. The historical experience in Lebanon vividly illustrates how a perceived power vacuum, often exacerbated by military intervention, can be skillfully exploited by external actors like Iran. Therefore, Israel’s strategic posture must include diplomatic initiatives to reduce the conditions that could enable Iranian influence to grow indirectly in Syria.

Direct military deterrence against Iranian proxies is necessary but insufficient. Instead, Israel could support multilateral frameworks involving the United States, Europe, and Arab states to negotiate mechanisms that restrict the flow of funds and arms to Iranian-backed militias in Syria. Additionally, Israel could advocate for targeted international sanctions explicitly aimed at Iranian entities involved in destabilizing activities within Syria, rather than broader sanctions affecting civilians. Such policies would help curtail Iran’s regional influence without exacerbating humanitarian crises or fueling further instability.

Ultimately, Israeli policymakers face a critical strategic choice in Syria, informed by historical lessons from Lebanon’s troubled legacy. Reliance primarily on military solutions has historically produced limited and often counterproductive results. Conversely, a strategy that incorporates comprehensive diplomatic engagement and nuanced political maneuvering has far greater potential for establishing lasting stability and enhancing Israel’s long-term security interests. Israel now stands at a pivotal juncture, either repeating past strategic missteps or boldly charting a more measured course.

Sinan Hatahet is a nonresident senior fellow for the Syria Project in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and the vice president for investment and social impact at the Syrian Forum.

The post Lebanon’s 1982 war reverberates in Israel’s Syria campaign appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Europe is striking back at Russia’s shadow fleet. Here’s what to know about the latest EU and UK sanctions.

Atlantic Council experts — Wed, 21 May 2025 22:00:06 +0000

Brussels and London are ratcheting up pressure on Moscow—without Washington. On Tuesday, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom approved scores of new sanctions against Russia, including the EU more than doubling the number of oil tankers and other vessels listed as part of the “shadow fleet” covertly trading Russian oil and gas. The EU package—the seventeenth since Russia’s war against Ukraine began—also adds new sanctions on individuals and companies, including the Russian oil giant Surgutneftegas. “This round of sanctions on Russia is the most wide-sweeping since the start of the war,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. Below, Atlantic Council experts shine a light on the sanctions and what they reveal about Europe’s faceoff with Russia.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

Rachel Rizzo: Europe is no longer waiting for the United States to act

Elisabeth Braw: Spotlight who is replenishing Russia’s shadow fleet, too

Aleksander Cwalina: There is still more the EU can do to tighten the screws to Russia

Olga Khakova: If Trump also goes after the shadow fleet, it could bring Putin to the table

Sanctions are a powerful, yet slow-burning tool

The EU’s seventeenth package is a welcome addition to the extensive sanctions the Group of Seven-plus (G7+) coalition maintain on Russia in response to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. The latest package further brings EU sanctions in line with US and UK designations on Russian oil producers including Surgutneftegas, as well as the ongoing strategy to target Russia’s illicit oil trade using shadow fleet vessels.

The extent and timing of this latest sanctions package demonstrate Europe’s resolve to maintain economic pressure on Russia, and they are a clear signal that Europe maintains strong economic leverage in potential negotiations with Russia to end the war.

It’s hard not to notice that the sanctions were announced the day after US President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and posted on social media that “Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over, and I agree.” There is growing concern about a potential divergence in US and EU foreign policy, and the latest EU package is a strong reminder that EU sanctions could remain in place even if Washington decides to ease its sanctions or open avenues for trade and finance with Moscow.

That said, EU sanctions require renewal every six months and need consensus by all twenty-seven members. If the United States does not maintain economic pressure on Russia, then there is concern that Hungary may break with the bloc and veto EU sanctions on Russia’s economy when they are up for renewal in July.

Sanctions are a powerful, yet slow-burning tool. The multilateral sanctions that G7+ coalition partners levied against Russia are finally having the intended effect. Russia’s economy is struggling, interest rates and inflation remain high, Russia is drawing down on its National Welfare Fund, and the country is in a wartime economy. This is why Moscow’s primary demand from the Black Sea cease-fire talks was lifting sanctions.

To get a better and bigger deal with Russia over the war in Ukraine, it would be in Washington’s best interest to not only engage its European allies in negotiations, but also to join them in issuing additional sanctions to deny Moscow the opportunity to gain leverage at the negotiation table.

Europe is no longer waiting for the United States to act

The latest round of EU sanctions against Russia highlights the EU’s willingness to do something it hasn’t yet done since February 2022: take ownership over the outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine. The United States has always been in the driver’s seat, with the Biden administration both shaping and leading the West’s response to the war. The re-election of Trump brought an almost 180-degree shift in the US approach, with a much more conciliatory tone toward Russia emanating from the White House, along with a hope that Trump’s dealmaking skills could get both sides to the table for a cease-fire. That approach has yet to bear fruit.

This is where the EU’s pressure becomes important. It highlights the bloc’s willingness to act independently of the United States and use its own tools to get Russia to the table without waiting for the United States to provide political cover. With European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen leading the charge, the hope is that the EU stays united on the sanctions front for the foreseeable future, squeezing Russia’s war machine (and its broader economy) to the point where Putin has no other choice than to stop the war.

—Rachel Rizzo is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center. Her research focuses on European security, NATO, and the transatlantic relationship.

Spotlight who is replenishing Russia’s shadow fleet, too

Every sanction helps reduce the shadow fleet’s activities, and the EU’s diligent efforts to identify shadow vessels are to be saluted. The EU should be especially proud of its latest package, which includes sanctions against an extraordinary 189 shadow vessels and some of the ships’ owners. The latter is especially important, since the owners do their best to operate in the shadows and are extremely hard to trace.

However, the shadow fleet’s main characteristic remains in place: the fact that it can be constantly replenished. It can be replenished because there are ship owners willing to sell their retirement-age ships into the shadow fleet. In fact, doing so is commercially advantageous for them: Retiring old vessels involves paying for them to be scrapped, while selling them into the shadow fleet brings in money—a lot of it.

Unfortunately, a few shipowners, including in Western countries, undermine sanctions against Russia by selling their ships into the shadow fleet. Perhaps even worse, by doing so, they willingly create risks on the high seas, because shadow vessels pose hazards to other vessels, to the maritime environment, and to coastal states. Publishing their names would send a strong message.

—Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

There is still more the EU can do to tighten the screws to Russia

On the sidelines of the G7 finance ministers’ meetings in Banff, Canada, this week, the United States opposed language in a joint statement that included “further support” for Ukraine. The United States also expressed reluctance to describe the Russian full-scale invasion of the country as “illegal,” further distancing Washington from its G7 counterparts. This follows a concerning trend as Trump has talked about Washington stepping back in peace talks and eventually restarting US trade with Russia.

In contrast, the European Commission pushed forward and adopted its seventeenth sanctions package against Russia, underlining European Union unity and clarity. The package closed some remaining loopholes that allow Russia to fund its war machine and access key Western technology for military use. In doing so, it reiterated EU solidarity with Ukraine.

The package was received well in Kyiv, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling the newest round of sanctions “strong” and saying that they will limit Moscow’s ability to continue its invasion.

However, more can be done to tighten the screws on Russia.

Kyiv and its European allies are already discussing how to raise the stakes in a harsher eighteenth EU sanctions package if Moscow does not make serious efforts toward a cease-fire. This would most likely target the Russian banking and energy sectors and aim to further limit the Russian shadow fleet that Moscow uses to evade maritime trade restrictions. The EU and its partners should continue to target these industries. The bloc should also seriously consider seizing assets from sanctioned individuals in the EU for Ukraine and implementing secondary sanctions that limit third-party purchasing of Russian oil—both steps recommended by Kyiv.

As European leaders are becoming increasingly frustrated with Washington’s stalling and Putin’s faux negotiations and maximalist demands, the EU should lead by example and take bold steps to continue aiding Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia.

—Aleksander Cwalina is an assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

If Trump also goes after the shadow fleet, it could bring Putin to the table

Putin’s strategy of buying time with deceitful “peace” promises is shown to be failing in the face of the new EU and UK sanctions, as funding for Moscow’s war starts to run out.

The shadow fleet carries more than 60 percent of Russian oil exports, according to a recent estimate, and the new sanctions will help strengthen enforcement of the price-caps mechanism on Russian oil. Currently, there are some discussions at the G7 level on lowering the price cap for the next sanctions package. But lowering the price cap will only impact Russia if it is enforced. Otherwise, Russia will continue to send large quantities of its oil through the shadow fleet, ensuring it continues to rake in profits.

In addition to curtailing Russia’s oil profits, the shadow fleet sanctions protect European coastlines from the potential environmental damage and sabotage that the Russian shadow fleet could cause. Europe is achieving this by refusing the provision of services, insurance, and port access to these metal-scrap grade ships.

The United States has already sanctioned 183 vessels. Now, Trump has an opportunity to forge his legacy as a peacemaker by joining the EU and UK sanctions on 342 vessels to bring Putin to the negotiating table. Moscow will only take US pressure seriously if it is implemented with decisiveness and strength—something the Trump administration has demonstrated effectively in tough negotiations with other nations.

—Olga Khakova is the deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

The post Europe is striking back at Russia’s shadow fleet. Here’s what to know about the latest EU and UK sanctions. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Putin aims to destroy Ukraine and has zero interest in a compromise peace

Peter Dickinson — Wed, 21 May 2025 20:51:25 +0000

US President Donald Trump came away from Monday’s phone call with Vladimir Putin expressing confidence that the Russian leader wants peace, but few others appear to share this optimism. Many senior Western figures were reportedly unimpressed by Putin’s vague references to a “memorandum on a possible peace agreement” and believe he is still engaging in stalling tactics. “Putin is clearly playing for time. Unfortunately we have to say Putin is not really interested in peace,” commented German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.

Trump’s latest call to Putin also prompted fresh questions over the US leader’s handling of the faltering peace process. Britain’s The Economist pondered Trump’s “strange reluctance to get tough with Putin,” while Washington Post columnist Max Boot led a chorus of voices accusing the Kremlin strongman of manipulating his American counterpart. “While Trump’s lack of success in peacemaking might not doom Ukraine, it certainly dispels the president’s pretensions to being a world-class deal maker,” argued Boot. “Putin is playing him for a fool, and Trump doesn’t even seem to realize it.”

The mood was very different in Moscow, with the Kremlin-controlled media trumpeting the call as a significant success for Russian diplomacy. In his daily press review, BBC correspondent Steve Rosenberg reported that many of Russia’s leading news outlets were “crowing” over the contents of the Trump-Putin conversation. “It looks like Russia has won the latest round of global poker,” commented one newspaper. “Donald Trump’s stance couldn’t be more advantageous to Moscow,” observed another.

It is no surprise to see mounting unease in Western capitals over the US push to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Since Trump first initiated peace talks in February, Ukraine has agreed to an unconditional ceasefire and signaled its readiness to make major territorial concessions. In contrast, Russia has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire while proposing new conditions of its own and creating various obstacles to any meaningful progress. At one point, Putin even claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy lacked the legitimacy to sign off on a peace deal and suggested placing Ukraine under United Nations administration.

Recent diplomatic developments have further underlined Russia’s reluctance to end the war. When the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Poland delivered a ceasefire ultimatum to Putin in early May, the Russian ruler responded by calling for the first bilateral talks with Ukraine since spring 2022. However, Putin then chose not to attend the bilateral meeting in Istanbul that he himself had proposed, preferring instead to send a low-level delegation. This was widely interpreted as a “slap in the face” for Ukraine and the collective West.

Putin’s representatives during last week’s negotiations in Istanbul sought to emphasize Moscow’s unwillingness to compromise, calling on Kyiv to officially cede four entire provinces to Russia including a number of major Ukrainian cities that the Kremlin has so far been unable to seize militarily. If Ukraine refuses to do so, they warned, Russia will increase its demands to include six Ukrainian provinces. “We fought Sweden for twenty-one years. How long are you ready to fight?” the head of the Russian delegation reportedly commented, in reference to the eighteenth century Great Northern War. “Maybe some of those sitting here at this table will lose more of their loved ones. Russia is prepared to fight forever.”

While Putin rarely makes such thinly veiled threats, he continues to insist that any settlement must focus on eliminating what he refers to as the “root causes” of the war. This is generally understood to mean Ukraine’s international neutrality and disarmament, along with the reestablishment of Russia’s former imperial dominance in every sphere of Ukrainian public life, from language and education to national memory and religion. Any Ukrainian leader who agreed to such terms would be signing their country’s death sentence.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Trump’s efforts to talk up the prospects of a negotiated peace and his attempts to entice Putin with commercial incentives suggest a fundamentally flawed understanding of Russia’s war aims in Ukraine. The US leader seems to sincerely believe that Putin can be persuaded to end his invasion by the promise of limited territorial gains and future economic prosperity. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Putin is not fighting for Ukrainian land; he is fighting for Ukraine itself. He views the current war in the broadest of possible historical terms and sees the destruction of the Ukrainian state as a sacred mission that will define his entire reign and shape Russia’s future for decades to come. It is ludicrous to suggest that he could be swayed from this messianic vision by mundane talk of trade deals and sanctions relief.

Putin’s thirst for historical revenge can be traced back to his traumatic experience during the collapse of the Soviet Union. While Putin did not personally face the grinding poverty that millions of his compatriots endured in the 1990s, Russia’s national fall from grace nevertheless made a profound impression on him. Ever since, he has been haunted by fears of a further imperial collapse and driven by a determination to reverse the verdict of 1991. This has fueled his revanchist brand of Russian nationalism, and helps to explain his otherwise inexplicable obsession with Ukraine.

Throughout his reign, Putin has made no secret of his bitter resentment over the breakup of the USSR, which he has called “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century” and “the disintegration of historical Russia.” Crucially, he views Ukraine as a central and indivisible part of this fabled “historical Russia.” Indeed, the Ukrainian capital Kyiv occupies pride of place in his imperial mythology as “the mother of all Russian cities.”

To Putin, the emergence of an independent Ukraine is a symbol of Russia’s post-Soviet humiliation and a potential catalyst for the next stage in his country’s retreat from empire. According to this twisted imperial logic, if a province as quintessentially Russian as Ukraine is allowed to break away and establish itself as a modern European democracy, the entire Russian Federation will be in danger of disintegrating. Likewise, Putin is convinced that if Ukraine can be returned to its rightful place within Greater Russia, the injustice of 1991 will be undone and Russia will resume its position among the world’s Great Powers.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

Putin has been attempting to force Ukraine back into the Kremlin orbit ever since the 2004 Orange Revolution, which he personally helped spark by clumsily intervening in Ukraine’s presidential election. The violence of these efforts has escalated in direct proportion to the strengthening of modern Ukraine’s own national identity. At first, Putin pursued his imperial goals in Ukraine through control of the country’s political, business, cultural, and religious elites. When this failed, he ordered the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Once it became apparent that even this partial occupation of the country would not derail Ukraine’s national consolidation, Putin made the fateful decision to launch the full-scale invasion of February 2022.

The rising tide of Russian aggression against Ukraine has been accompanied by ever more extreme anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. For years, Putin has publicly insisted that Ukrainians are Russians (“one people”). On the eve of the current invasion, he published an entire essay denying Ukraine’s right to exist. Putin and other senior Kremlin officials have repeatedly labeled Ukraine as an artificial country built on stolen Russian land, a Nazi invention, and an intolerable “anti-Russia” created for the purpose of undermining Russia itself. Ukrainians who insist on their own national identity are typically portrayed as traitors undeserving of sympathy or mercy.

This dehumanizing propaganda has laid the ideological foundations for the crimes that are currently being committed by the occupying Russian army in Ukraine. Wherever the Kremlin is able to establish control, Ukrainian patriots and community leaders are routinely detained and incarcerated in a vast network of prisons and camps. While the number of victims remains unknown, UN officials have concluded that the large scale and systematic nature of the disappearances qualifies as a crime against humanity. Those who remain are subjected to a reign of terror and forced to accept Russian citizenship while submitting their children to indoctrination. Meanwhile, all traces of Ukrainian national identity, culture, and statehood are being ruthlessly erased. Many experts believe these actions qualify as genocide.

Putin is understandably happy to exploit the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for peace talks. This allows him to buy time, divide the West, and reduce the flow of weapons to Ukraine. But it is already abundantly clear that he has no real interest in ending his invasion. Indeed, he dare not stop. Any peace deal that secures Ukraine’s survival as an independent state would be viewed in Moscow as a major defeat. Rather than taking his place alongside Stalin, Peter the Great, and Ivan the Terrible as one of Russia’s greatest rulers, Putin would be remembered in Russian history as the man who lost Ukraine. He would rather fight on indefinitely than accept such a fate.

Trump deserves considerable credit for seizing the initiative and attempting to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. At the same time, his current approach is obviously not working. The time has now come to stop seeking compromises with the Kremlin and start speaking to Putin in the language of strength. This means tightening sanctions on Russia and targeting the many countries that continue to fuel Putin’s war machine. Above all, it means significantly increasing military aid to Kyiv and boosting Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Putin has staked his entire reign on the destruction of Ukraine. He will not back down unless forced to do so. Peace will only come when Ukraine is too strong to be subjugated.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Although the details of Golden Dome remain unclear, the Trump administration should seek to hold a revived missile defense dialogue with US partners and allies across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Such a dialogue would serve the Trump administration’s agenda in its strategic, political, and industrial dimensions. However, the success of this dialogue and effective missile defense collaboration will require overcoming technical military challenges, as well as carefully addressing the sensitivities of regional partners. In particular, this means being careful not to overstate Golden Dome’s role in the United States’ pledges of extended deterrence to its allies.

Can US missile defense help the Pentagon prioritize the Indo-Pacific?

Renewing US investment in missile defense could be seen by the current administration as a way to help reassure allies from the threat of potential adversaries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran while mitigating the need for a massive deployment of US troops on the ground. This logic is not new. During the Obama administration, US officials conveyed to NATO allies that deploying missile defense systems in Europe would compensate for the reduction in the number of army brigades deployed on the continent. The origins of Poland’s Aegis Ashore system in Redzikowo, officially transferred to NATO in November 2024, date back to the decisions taken by the Obama administration.

Given the Trump administration’s desire to reduce the US military footprint worldwide and focus on strategic competition with China, missile defense could be a convenient way to maintain global influence while lowering overseas troop commitments. From the outset, missile defense has always involved advanced technologies, demanding years of research and development that only a few countries can afford. If Golden Dome achieves its goals, it will shift resources to develop space-based missile defense systems. This could disrupt the current market for missile defense, which is made up mainly of ground and naval-based sensors and interceptors. Today, none of the US allies and partners in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia has a space industry that could credibly invest in this new domain. Consequently, it is likely that strategic cooperation on Golden Dome means allies procuring future US missile defense systems and added incentives for co-production. A few regional partners are engaged in the co-production of US missile defense systems, such as Japan* for the surface-to-air SM-3 and PAC-3 missiles. Last April, Japan proposed the co-production of SM-6 new-generation long-range ship-to-air missiles. Israel may be interested in similar collaborations, as its main missile defense systems (Iron Dome, Arrow, David’s Sling) already rely on co-development and co-production with the United States.

For a broader allied collaboration on missile defense production to take shape, however, the United States will need to navigate several military and diplomatic difficulties in dialogues with its partners.

Different allies, different reassurance needs

First, US partners in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific face different threats from their respective adversaries’ missile capabilities. Golden Dome is conceived to address global competitors launching an intercontinental ballistic missile at US territory. It is planned to include space-based interceptors, which could prove effective in defending allies against adversaries using long-range ballistic missiles—for instance, if Russia were to launch a strike against Europe.

However, Europeans are also worried about shorter-range cruise missiles and drone campaigns such as the one launched by Russia in Ukraine, which requires different systems to address. In light of Ukraine’s experience, Europeans started addressing their capability gaps to protect against a full spectrum of air threats (cruise missiles, ballistic and hypersonic missiles, aircraft, and unmanned aircraft sysems). Meanwhile, the Gulf states and Israel face the threat from rockets and missiles fired by Iran or its proxies.

The ability of missile defense to reassure local partners varies according to the severity of the threat. For instance, in the extreme scenario of a total US withdrawal of troops from South Korea, it is unlikely that Seoul would view US missile defense as a credible substitute for US boots on the ground as a defense against North Korea. Lastly, allies and partners are unlikely to receive the same amount of attention. The United States is prioritizing the Indo-Pacific theater, and Golden Dome is intended as a technological breakthrough in the space domain—an area where China is rapidly advancing. This will lead European and Gulf states to fear being left out of any new missile defense arrangement.

Golden Dome and Alliance politics

The second challenge facing Washington lies in the disparities in the regional security architectures in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In the past two decades, the United States has only succeeded in creating a truly regional framework for missile defense in Europe.

In the Middle East and Asia, most US missile defense cooperation is bilateral. The lack of regional integration often results from distrust among local partners. It is also caused by the reluctance of countries in these regions to tie their national security prerogatives to an intergovernmental mechanism heavily dependent on Washington. This constrains the United States’ ability to apply missile defense cooperation lessons from NATO elsewhere.

In the Middle East and Asia, Washington must build on its existing cooperation frameworks and should consider exploring new formats. The August 2023 Camp David Summit opened up the development of a trilateral security cooperation framework with Japan and South Korea, with more consultation, information-sharing, and cooperation designed to accompany the integration of Indo-Pacific missile defense architecture. The three countries have since implemented real-time information sharing about North Korean missile launches. Additionally, missile defense could become an item on the agenda of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or between NATO and its four Asian partners—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.

Washington will also have to accommodate the different industrial interests of its partners. Today, US allies have domestic defense industries with their own missile defense programs to protect. In Asia, countries such as South Korea and Japan have produced their own missile defense systems. Even though they will keep procuring US products, their governments will carefully protect their industrial bases. In Europe, the Sky Shield initiative, launched in 2022 by twenty-four participating countries, will rely on US Patriot and Israeli Arrow batteries. France fiercely opposed the initiative in the name of strategic autonomy, to no avail.

However, Sky Shield may not reflect the current state of US-European relations. Golden Dome emerges amid a transatlantic crisis in which Europeans are trying to become more self-sufficient in their defense. Their desire for strategic autonomy and the need to protect the European defense industrial base mean they will likely pursue their own version of missile defense. In this case, European governments must make clear the areas where they intend to design and produce their own systems, including investments in the space domain.

Differences in political priorities and strategic culture are inevitable, but consultations should identify the space for common interests between the United States and its allies. The case of Israel offers positive lessons on cooperation in missile defense. The US and Israeli militaries have very few things in common when it comes to threat assessment, force structure, and doctrine, not to mention Israel’s desire to protect its national defense industry. But both countries—and their defense industries—have found ways to develop missile defense technologies to mutual benefit.

Ultimately, the success of a renewed missile defense dialogue will boil down to how much cooperation on the Golden Dome project can serve the security interests of US partners. While the deterrent value of missile defense remains limited, Golden Dome could play a complementary role. With nuclear and missile threats becoming ever more serious, the question of how to defend against such attacks has never been more salient in allied capitals, be they in Europe, the Middle East, or the Indo-Pacific.

Léonie Allard is a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, previously serving at the French Ministry of Armed Forces.

Jean-Loup Samaan is a senior research fellow at the Middle East Institute of the National University of Singapore, as well as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.

Correction: This article was updated on May 29, 2025 to reflect the fact that multiple regional partners engage in co-production of US missile defense systems. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Japan was the only country to do so.

The post Golden Dome creates a new missile defense bargain with US partners appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Iran’s shadow looms large over the Houthi ceasefire

Fatima Abo Alasrar and Behnam Ben Taleblu — Wed, 21 May 2025 15:50:56 +0000

It’s too soon for another US “mission accomplished” in the Middle East.

President Donald Trump this month announced a halt to US airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, claiming the group “capitulated” and would cease targeting American vessels and Red Sea traffic.

But a Washington victory lap now, after more than fifty straight days of preemptive military force against the Iran-backed terror group, would be premature. After all, no ceasefire is born of a political vacuum. Senior Iranian officials who were involved in the Omani-mediated ceasefire swayed the Houthis to cease attacking US assets, revealing Tehran’s continued command and control over its proxy’s strategic decisions rather than any genuine Houthi concession.

While presented as a US-Houthi agreement, the ceasefire is consistent with a well-established pattern by Iran: directing proxies to dial violence up or down as strategic circumstances demand, all while benefiting from the perception of these groups being autonomous, as long seen in the cases of Lebanese Hezbollah or Shiite militias in Iraq. This duplicitous approach, extending a diplomatic handshake while concealing the knife of proxy warfare, is precisely how Iran extends its influence beyond its actual capabilities.

Over the past decade, Iran has become the Houthis’ most important foreign backer, providing them with missiles, drones, and other military-grade components. Additionally, Tehran aides Houthi sanctions-busting and illicit revenue generation efforts. Through the Houthis, Iran has put state-level military capabilities into the hands of a non-state actor in Yemen.

However, Washington’s relentless airstrikes have decimated Houthi military infrastructure since launching in March, targeting missile depots, command nodes, and radar systems on a scale not seen in Yemen since the early days of Saudi Arabia’s 2015 intervention. US officials say their forces have struck over a thousand targets in just seven weeks.

Tehran is buying time

For the Islamic Republic, preserving assets and living to fight another day is something of an art form. Tehran is cognizant of growing vulnerabilities at home and abroad, and is offering tactical concessions to create the impression of a “win” for its adversaries, particularly in Trump’s Washington. For instance, during the Vienna nuclear talks, Iranian officials repeatedly stated they had shown “tactical flexibility on technical points” while maintaining “core red lines.” Iran’s foreign minister insisted that the country’s strategic objectives remained intact. This pattern mirrors Iran’s behavior during the 2015 nuclear deal, where it accepted temporary limits on its nuclear program but refused to negotiate over its ballistic missile arsenal or regional proxy networks. This approach allows Tehran to benefit from diplomatic engagement, even short-term ceasefires, without altering its core security objectives.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi officially announced the US-Houthi agreement as a means to ensure “freedom of navigation” in the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia immediately welcomed the truce as a step toward “a comprehensive political solution to the Yemeni crisis” that could ensure “security and stability for Yemen and the wider region.”

But behind Riyadh’s endorsement lies war fatigue against an Iranian proxy, and the challenge of navigating often-conflicting US-Middle East policy priorities across four presidential administrations. After nearly a decade of Houthi conflict and no meaningful military victory, Saudi Arabia moved from contestation to containment. In 2023, it even restored diplomatic ties with the Houthis’ patron, the Islamic Republic, signaling a broader strategic retreat. Therefore, what began in 2015 as a campaign to dislodge and disarm the Houthis has ended with quiet disengagement and a more potent Houthi threat on the Kingdom’s doorstep. Iran, meanwhile, pursued a strategy of endurance rather than dominance, arming and advising its proxies at low cost while watching Saudi Arabia bleed resources and legitimacy. Each year the conflict dragged on, Tehran’s model of indirect warfare gained ground. Tehran, therefore, never really needed to win; it just needed to outlast Riyadh.

Critically, the new Omani-mediated ceasefire’s timing aligns perfectly with another Omani diplomatic endeavor in the region: indirect nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States. According to sources cited by CNN, the Houthi ceasefire “aimed at building momentum for nuclear deal talks with Iran.”

By being the driving force behind the Houthi ceasefire, Tehran can frame its regional weakness as goodwill, thereby strengthening its case for something in return. This tactic is not new. In 2022, as former US President Joe Biden’s administration pursued renewed nuclear talks, rocket and drone attacks on US assets in Iraq dropped sharply. Biden cited the lull as evidence of regional stability, even as senior Iranian officials, including IRGC commander Esmail Qaani, made repeated visits to Iraq to manage militia activity and shape political outcomes. The timing suggests Tehran used a tactical pause in proxy activity to support its diplomatic goals, without altering its core posture.

This calculated diplomatic maneuver also seemingly comes in response to the Trump administration’s escalating maximum pressure campaign. This month, the US president demanded an immediate end to “all purchases of Iranian oil, or petrochemical products,” and later, he sanctioned an independent refinery in China processing Iranian crude oil. Trump has recently insisted on “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, a position bolstered by his hawkish fellow Republicans in the US Congress.

SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER

Beyond using the ceasefire to generate leverage, Tehran faces the more immediate priority of preventing the collapse of its Houthi proxy. The Houthi insurgency in Yemen, including the 2015 takeover of the capital Sana’a, provided Iran a low-cost opportunity to deepen its footprint in the Arabian Peninsula, offset its regional rival Saudi Arabia, and expand the scope of maritime harassment from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

This diplomatic intervention follows Iran’s established approach in Lebanon in 2024, where it sought a ceasefire for Hezbollah when Israel’s military campaign imposed defeat after defeat on the Iran-backed terror group. With Hamas flattened in Gaza, much of Hezbollah’s leadership crippled, and the loss of Iran’s sole state partner in the Middle East with Bashar al-Assad’s rule in Syria, Tehran cannot afford to lose another leg of its so-called “Axis of Resistance.”

Israel: The deliberate exception

While the Houthis ostensibly negotiated directly with the United States through Omani intermediaries to get a reprieve from the relentless strikes, Tehran’s fingerprints are evident in the selective scope of the agreement. The ceasefire specifically excludes Israel, with the Houthis’ chief negotiator, Mohammed Abdulsalam, explicitly stating that it “does not address operations against Israel in any way.” This surgical separation of US and Israeli security aligns perfectly with Iran’s regional strategy of isolating Israel while reducing direct pressure on its proxy network, but also with the Houthis’ own narrative of resistance, in which attacks on Israel serve a distinct ideological and symbolic purpose.

This carve-out proved especially useful in mid-May when they issued direct threats against the Israeli port city of Haifa, maintaining pressure on Israel while staying technically within the bounds of their agreement with Washington. Such targeted provocations highlight the fundamental problem with partial regional ceasefires—they merely redirect rather than resolve hostilities, allowing Iran’s proxy network to strategically focus its aggression while creating the illusion of diplomatic progress.

Moreover, Tehran may be looking to press on a cleavage that already exists between Washington and Jerusalem on regional security priorities. For example, while Washington was seeking an off-ramp, Israel escalated its military campaign, striking Houthi targets, Yemen’s power facilities, and destroying Sanaa’s international airport. The Houthis’ declaration of an “aerial blockade” against Israel just two days before finalizing the US ceasefire similarly signals this calculated pivot, abandoning maritime attacks on Washington’s interests while intensifying focus on Israeli targets.

Ceasefire as a tactical advantage for the Houthis

For the Houthis, ceasefires are less an end to conflict than extensions of it by other means. Like in past truces, pauses allow for regrouping, recruitment, and rearmament—often with more lethal outcomes. The illusion of calm often precedes a sharper escalation.

During the previous ceasefire with Saudi Arabia, for example, the Houthis unveiled advanced military hardware from Iran during parades, some of which they later used in attacks from November 2023 onward. This ceasefire gives the Houthis crucial time to recover and rearm, while allowing Tehran to preserve its last effective pressure point on the Arabian Peninsula and on another strategic chokepoint, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea.

Iran’s dual “knife and a handshake” strategy has repeatedly proven effective. The Houthis may have temporarily suspended their attacks on US vessels, but Tehran has neither abandoned its regional ambitions nor its determination to drive wedges between the United States and its allies. This calculated maneuver serves as a stark reminder that apparent de-escalation often masks preparation for future conflict.

If Washington and its regional partners want to blunt Tehran’s influence, they must stop treating tactical pauses as strategic breakthroughs. Iran’s proxies do not need sustained battlefield victories to succeed—only time, space, and plausible deniability. Meaningful pushback requires more than just airstrikes or ceasefire diplomacy. It demands a coordinated strategy that recognizes the interconnectedness of Iran’s proxy network and denies it the ability to regroup under the cover of de-escalation. Anything less risks repeating the same pattern: temporary quiet, followed by deeper entrenchment.

Fatima Abo Alasrar is a Senior Analyst at the Washington Center for Yemeni Studies.

Behnam Ben Taleblu is the senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington, DC.

The post Iran’s shadow looms large over the Houthi ceasefire appeared first on Atlantic Council.

US-Ukraine minerals deal creates potential for economic and security benefits

Svitlana Kovalchuk — Tue, 20 May 2025 20:50:09 +0000

The Ukrainian parliament ratified a landmark economic partnership agreement with the United States in early May, setting the stage for a new chapter in bilateral relations between Kyiv and Washington. The minerals deal envisages long-term cooperation in the development of Ukrainian natural resources. It marks an historic shift in Ukraine’s status from aid recipient to economic partner, while potentially paving the way for the attraction of strategic investments that could help fuel the country’s recovery.

The agreement was widely welcomed in Kyiv. Ukraine’s Minister of Economy and First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko called the deal “the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner,” and noted that the Reconstruction Investment Fund within the framework of the agreement would be operational within a matter of weeks. “Its success will depend on the level of US engagement,” she emphasized.

This deal isn’t just about mining and investment. It is a new kind of partnership that combines economic cooperation with security interests. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who played a key role in negotiating the terms of the agreement, said the minerals deal was a signal to Americans that the United States could “be partners in the success of the Ukrainian people.” Others have stressed that the partnership will allow the US to recoup the billions spent supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia. However, the deal isn’t primarily about reimbursement. It is a declaration of a strategic alliance rooted in mutual economic interest.

The new agreement between Kyiv and Washington differs greatly from classic concession deals as Ukraine retains full ownership of national natural resources while the Reconstruction Investment Fund will be under joint management. Unlike more traditional trade deals or resource acquisitions, this is a strategic agreement that combines commercial objectives with geopolitical interests, making it a textbook example of economic statecraft. By establishing military aid as a form of capital investment, the United States is securing a long-term stake in Ukraine’s security and the management of the country’s resources.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The minerals deal with Ukraine offers a number of obvious potential advantages for the United States. Crucially, it ensures preferential access to rare and highly valued natural resources like lithium and titanium, thereby reducing dependency on China. This is a strategic win for Washington with the possibility of significant long-term geopolitical implications. The deal also creates a framework for further US military aid to be treated as an investment via the Reconstruction Investment Fund, providing opportunities for the United States to benefit economically from continued support for Ukraine.

By signing a long-term resource-sharing agreement, the United States is also sending an important signal to Moscow about its commitment to Ukraine. Any US investments in line with the minerals deal will involve a significant American financial and physical presence in Ukraine, including in areas that are close to the current front lines of the war. Advocates of the deal believe this could help deter further Russian aggression. Kremlin officials are also doubtless aware that around forty percent of Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves are located in regions currently under Russian occupation.

Eurasia Center events

Drones, defense, and diplomacy: Negotiations and the battlefield in Ukraine

Conflict Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia Politics & Diplomacy

There are fears that the mineral deal makes Ukraine too dependent on the United States and leaves the country unable to manage its own resources independently. Some critics have even argued that it is a form of dependency theory in action, with Ukraine’s mineral wealth set to primarily fuel the needs of US industry rather than building up the country’s domestic economy. However, advocates argue that Ukraine was able to negotiate favorable terms that create a credible partnership, while also potentially securing valuable geopolitical benefits.

The agreement provides the US with a form of priority access but not exclusivity. Specifically, the US is granted the right to be informed about investment opportunities in critical minerals and to negotiate purchase rights under market conditions. However, the framework of the agreement explicitly respects Ukraine’s commitments to the EU, ensuring that European companies can still compete for resource access.

In terms of implementation, it is important to keep practical challenges in mind. The identification, mining, and processing of mineral resources is not a short-term business with immediate payoffs. On the contrary, it could take between one and two decades to fully develop many of Ukraine’s most potentially profitable mines. Without a sustainable peace, it will be very difficult to secure the investment necessary to access Ukraine’s resources. Without investment, the Reconstruction Investment Fund risks becoming an empty gesture rather than an economic powerhouse.

The minerals deal has the potential to shift the dynamics of the war while shaping the US-Ukrainian relationship for years to come. The United States is not only investing in resources, it is also investing in influence. Viewed from Washington, the agreement is less about producing quick payoffs and more about allowing President Trump to make a statement to US citizens and to the Russians. For Ukraine, the minerals deal provides a boost to bilateral relations and creates opportunities for a new economic partnership. America’s strategic rivals will be watching closely to see how this partnership now develops.

Svitlana Kovalchuk is Executive Director at Yalta European Strategy (YES).

If these companies are forced to close, skilled professionals will seek employment abroad. This could lead to the leakage of knowledge and technologies. Meanwhile, with NATO countries likely to be focused on their own defense industries and strategic priorities, it is reasonable to assume that many Ukrainian defense sector companies will concentrate on exporting to more volatile regions. The potentially destabilizing impact of these trends is obvious. It is therefore vital to adopt effective measures to limit the spread of Ukrainian defense sector technologies, data, and finished products along with skilled developers, engineers, and operators to potential conflict zones around the world.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s defense sector innovations fall into two categories. The first includes innovations that are easily replicated using readily available technologies. The second category features more complex systems requiring skilled professionals. It makes little sense to focus regulatory efforts on the first category. Instead, preventing proliferation is more effectively managed through intelligence operations and security measures. Preventative efforts should focus on those innovations that are more complex in both development and deployment.

Efforts to prevent Ukrainian defense technologies from fueling conflicts around the world will depend to a significant degree on enforcement. While Ukraine has made some progress in combating corruption over the past decade, this remains a major issue, particularly in the country’s dramatically expanded defense sector. A successful approach to limiting the spread of Ukrainian defense tech know-how should therefore incorporate a combination of positive and negative incentives.

Positive incentives can include opening up NATO markets to Ukrainian companies and supporting their efforts to comply with NATO standards. This would likely encourage a broader culture of compliance throughout the Ukrainian defense tech sector as companies sought to access the world’s most lucrative client base.

Eurasia Center events