Iran’s massive strike on Israel two weeks ago turned into something of a gift. Some of the benefits will accrue personally to embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but those are likely to fade. But the boost Iran gave to Israel collectively has already had important repercussions, some of which could be lasting.
A $61 billion aid package to help Ukraine was finally passed in Congress and will be signed into law. But questions still linger over Washington’s ability to act as a reliable partner to its friends and a determined adversary to its foes.
More than a week later, there remains considerable uncertainty about Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel using its long-range strike capabilities. As more information becomes public, it is important to be mindful of three important considerations to understand the attack’s implications on military dynamics across the Middle East.
Israel’s use of an automated system to identify targets in Gaza has raised alarm over the advent of autonomous weapons systems. But the fact that Israeli soldiers were “in the loop” in this case gives the concept of AI-powered “Killer Robots” new meaning, while also potentially giving campaigners a new direction for advocacy efforts.
During his visit to Washington last week, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio suggested the U.S. may be feeling “self-doubt” when it comes to its global leadership role. His remarks point to an underappreciated aspect of global politics: In addition to being willing and able to act, a hegemon must also believe it can get the job done.
For more than a century, the ability to project naval strength on a massive scale has been the crucial lynchpin of U.S. global hegemony. Yet a structural crisis that is now overwhelming the U.S. Navy presents as much of a threat to Washington’s geopolitical position as the isolationist populism fueled by the rise of Donald Trump.
The out-in-the-open friction between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron offers an unsettling glimpse into the complicated political landscape faced by Kyiv and the Ukrainian people as Russia’s assault, now in its third year, makes steady gains ahead of a potentially decisive summer offensive.
Around the world, militaries have begun to embrace AI as the latest technological silver bullet. This trend, and its pitfalls, has been on prominent display in Gaza, where the Israeli military’s use of AI-driven models for targeting decisions has had a devastating impact on civilians in exchange for limited strategic results.
Yesterday marked 75 years since NATO’s founding, notable not only as a mark of longevity but also because, unlike most of the years of NATO’s existence, the alliance is immersed in war. That makes NATO as relevant as ever. But does “relevant” necessarily mean “valuable”? Put simply, is NATO still worth it?
Russian assaults in Chinese-made all terrain vehicles, or ATVs, are now a daily occurrence along the frontlines of the Ukraine war. They indicate how Moscow is adapting its battlefield tactics, and this evolution could change how the Russian state approaches war on a strategic level.
Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the West should consider deploying troops to Ukraine, a suggestion immediately repudiated by several of his European counterparts. But mobilizing a non-NATO military mission to Ukraine would be an effective way for the West to signal its collective resolve against Russia.