Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"The argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence."

– Ayn Rand

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."

– Carl Jung

"The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire."

– Ferdinand Foch

1. U.S. Lifts Key Restriction on Ukraine’s Use of European Long-Range Missiles

2. . U.S. Imposes Substantial New Sanctions on Russian Oil Giants

3. U.S. Widens Campaign Against Alleged Drug Boats With Eastern Pacific Strike

4. Trump’s Been Bombing Boats in the Caribbean. Is This Legal?

5. The New Militarized War on Drugs—Time to View Cartels as National Security Threats?

6. A Parade of Senior U.S. Officials Descends on Israel for ‘Bibisitting’ Duty7

7. Islamic State Rises Again in Syria, Filling a Void Left by U.S.

8. President Trump’s Push for Bagram Air Base: Strategic Miscalculation or Political Posturing?

9. Turning Back the Clock: Leveraging Game Theory Across the Conflict Continuum

10. As China’s leaders chart the next 5-year plan, they hear echoes from long ago

11. China says it’s a responsible force in AI, but most Americans see US leadership as crucial

12. “Asymmetric Unconventional Warfare,” Also Known as Chinese Counterfeiting

13. AFP warns vs. China-linked disinformation aiming to divide ranks

14. Takaichi to put defense push in spotlight in bid to satiate Trump demands

15. In a war, the US Army could destroy China’s ports. Should it?

16. Pentagon announces a new right-wing press corps after mass walkout

17. Zelenskyy heads north for possible Swedish arms deal

18. Analysis: Trump is trying to break China’s monopoly on rare earths, but can’t cut deals fast enough to catch up

19. Zelenskyy calls Trump’s proposal to freeze war at current frontlines ‘good compromise’

20. The Army yearns for the mines, reopens WWII-era critical mineral site

21. The AI Grand Bargain – What America Needs to Win the Innovation Race

22. Should the Army bring back the Pentomic Division?

23. A Guide to Collaborating With (and Not Surrendering to) AI in the Military Classroom

24. How Food Feeds Strategic Competition

25. The Biggest Threat to the Gaza Deal

1. U.S. Lifts Key Restriction on Ukraine’s Use of European Long-Range Missiles

To push Putin to talk liley requires setting the conditions that Ukraine will continue to fight with the full support of the US and NATO. and that especially the US will take all necessary measures short of war to support Ukraine.

If Putin thinks we are going to give up on support to Ukraine he will not negotiate. But if he is convinced of US and NATO sustained support he may determine his only option is to negotiate.

Excerpts:

The unannounced U.S. move to enable Kyiv to use the missile in Russia comes after authority for supporting such attacks was recently transferred from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon to the top U.S. general in Europe, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who also serves as NATO commander.

The shift coincided with a push in early October by President Trump to pressure the Kremlin into talks on ending the war, including the possibility that he would approve sending Kyiv U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Trump has since backed off that proposal.

However U.S. officials said they expect Ukraine to conduct more cross-border attacks using the Storm Shadow, which is launched from Ukrainian aircraft and can travel more than 180 miles. The U.S. can restrict Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow because the missiles use American targeting data.

In a statement, a White House official said: “This is a war that never would have happened had President Trump been President, something [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin himself acknowledged, and President Trump is trying to get it stopped. The President also negotiated a historic agreement to allow NATO allies to purchase American-made weapons.”

The Pentagon didn’t respond to requests for comment. Ukraine’s General Staff didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

After this article was published, Trump posted on social media that “the U.S.A.’s approval of Ukraine being allowed to use long range missiles deep into Russia is FAKE NEWS! The U.S. has nothing to do with those missiles, wherever they may come from, or what Ukraine does with them!”

The Storm Shadow relies on U.S. intelligence to hit its targets. Beginning last spring, the Pentagon insisted on reviewing Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, including Storm Shadow, to strike inside Russia. No such missiles were used for this purpose until the authority to approve attacks was shifted earlier this month to U.S. European Command.

Ukraine’s renewed use of Storm Shadows isn’t a game changer on the battlefield. They have a far shorter range than U.S. Tomahawks, and have been used to strike targets in Russia before. But the missiles do enable Kyiv to expand its attacks inside Russia.

U.S. Lifts Key Restriction on Ukraine’s Use of European Long-Range Missiles

The move coincides with a Trump push to pressure Moscow into talks on ending the war and to withhold U.S. Tomahawk missiles from Kyiv

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-lifts-key-restriction-on-ukraines-use-of-western-long-range-missiles-5a15c12d

By Lara Seligman

Follow, Michael R. Gordon

Follow and Alexander Ward

Updated Oct. 22, 2025 6:45 pm ET

Ukraine this week attacked a Russian plant with a Storm Shadow cruise missile like the one pictured. Ben Stansall/Press Pool

Quick Summary

The Trump administration lifted a restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles, enabling attacks inside Russia.View more

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Ukraine used a British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missile on Tuesday to strike a Russian plant in Bryansk that produced explosives and rocket fuel, the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces announced on social media. It called the strike a “successful hit” that penetrated Russian air defenses.

The unannounced U.S. move to enable Kyiv to use the missile in Russia comes after authority for supporting such attacks was recently transferred from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon to the top U.S. general in Europe, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who also serves as NATO commander.

The shift coincided with a push in early October by President Trump to pressure the Kremlin into talks on ending the war, including the possibility that he would approve sending Kyiv U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Trump has since backed off that proposal.

However U.S. officials said they expect Ukraine to conduct more cross-border attacks using the Storm Shadow, which is launched from Ukrainian aircraft and can travel more than 180 miles. The U.S. can restrict Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow because the missiles use American targeting data.

President Trump backed off an idea to send U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv. Allison Robbert/Press Pool

In a statement, a White House official said: “This is a war that never would have happened had President Trump been President, something [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin himself acknowledged, and President Trump is trying to get it stopped. The President also negotiated a historic agreement to allow NATO allies to purchase American-made weapons.”

The Pentagon didn’t respond to requests for comment. Ukraine’s General Staff didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

After this article was published, Trump posted on social media that “the U.S.A.’s approval of Ukraine being allowed to use long range missiles deep into Russia is FAKE NEWS! The U.S. has nothing to do with those missiles, wherever they may come from, or what Ukraine does with them!”

The Storm Shadow relies on U.S. intelligence to hit its targets. Beginning last spring, the Pentagon insisted on reviewing Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, including Storm Shadow, to strike inside Russia. No such missiles were used for this purpose until the authority to approve attacks was shifted earlier this month to U.S. European Command.

Ukraine’s renewed use of Storm Shadows isn’t a game changer on the battlefield. They have a far shorter range than U.S. Tomahawks, and have been used to strike targets in Russia before. But the missiles do enable Kyiv to expand its attacks inside Russia.

Former President Joe Biden approved Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow and U.S. missiles known as Atacms against targets inside Russia toward the end of his administration. But after Trump came into office, the Pentagon set up a review procedure for approving cross-border strikes using U.S. missiles or those from other countries, including Storm Shadow, that rely on U.S. targeting data.

Under the mechanism, the defense secretary had final say over whether Ukraine could employ Western long-range weapons to strike Russia. No attacks were approved until recently when authority for approving such attacks was returned to European Command, two U.S. officials said.

Ukraine is also carrying out attacks well inside Russia with domestically-produced drones and a small number of homegrown missiles. Many of the strikes have been directed against Russian oil refineries and energy infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal reported in September that Trump has approved sharing that targeting data, which notably includes oil refineries.

U.S. Imposes Substantial New Sanctions on Russian Oil Giants

Measures against Lukoil and Rosneft come as negotiations over ending the war in Ukraine have stalled

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/bessent-u-s-to-impose-substantial-sanctions-on-russia-84132054

By Robbie Gramer

Follow, Alexander Ward

Follow and Laurence Norman

Updated Oct. 23, 2025 4:18 am ET

Trump Announces ‘Massive’ New Sanctions on Russian Oil Companies

Play video: Trump Announces ‘Massive’ New Sanctions on Russian Oil Companies

The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on Russian oil companies Lukoil and Rosneft as the talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war have stalled. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Quick Summary

President Trump announced new sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft, and their subsidiaries.View more

WASHINGTON—President Trump has announced substantial new sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies as frustration in Washington grows over the war in Ukraine.

The new sanctions, which would be the first direct U.S. measures on Russia during the second Trump administration, target Lukoil and Rosneft as well as nearly three dozen of their subsidiaries. Oil is one of Russia’s largest sources of revenue.

The U.S. sanctions could bar foreign countries or companies from conducting business with the oil companies and cut them off from much of the international financial system.

Oil prices surged following the announcement. Brent crude futures, the global oil benchmark, were 3.3% higher Thursday morning.

Asked at the White House why the administration had decided to act against the companies at this stage, Trump said, “I just felt it was time. We waited a long time.” He posted the sanctions list on social media, calling on Moscow to agree to an “immediate cease-fire.”

“Now is the time to stop the killing and for an immediate cease-fire,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “Treasury is prepared to take further action if necessary to support President Trump’s effort to end yet another war. We encourage our allies to join us in and adhere to these sanctions.”

The sanctions come as negotiations over ending the war in Ukraine have stalled, with Trump putting off a planned second summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest.

The imposition of sanctions is aimed at sending a clear signal that Trump’s patience with Putin is wearing thin as he looks for ways to pressure Russia into a peace deal that ends nearly four years of fighting.

On his way into a meeting of European Union leaders Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed the Trump administration sanctions.

“We waited for this,” he told said. “This is very important.”

“For the first time during the tenure of the 47th President of the United States, Washington has decided to impose full blocking sanctions against Russian energy companies,” said Olga Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. “This step follows numerous efforts to give Russia an opportunity to engage in genuine negotiations to end the war.”

“This decision fully aligns with Ukraine’s consistent position that peace can only be achieved through strength and by exerting maximum pressure on the aggressor using all available international instruments,” Stefanishyna said.

“Before today, Rosneft and Lukoil were cut off from U.S. capital markets. Today they are fully cut off from the dollar—all transactions of any kind,” said Eddie Fishman, a former senior State Department sanctions official.

The Treasury Department, in its sanctions notice released on Wednesday, also warned that “foreign financial institutions that conduct or facilitate significant transactions or provide any service involving Russia’s military-industrial base” also “run the risk of being sanctioned.”

Treasury added that transactions with the newly designated entities “may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions on participating foreign financial institutions.”

“A Chinese bank, a U.A.E. oil trader, an Indian refinery—if any of them transact with those Russian companies, they could be hit with U.S. sanctions,” said Fishman.

Penalties on Russia’s ability to sell oil and energy resources are expected to significantly hit the country’s economy. “Russia’s war machine is going to take a severe hit,” said Kim Donavan, a former White House and Treasury official now with the Atlantic Council think tank. “They’re already having a hard time funding the government and military, so this will affect their ability to continue the war and could be a driving factor to pressure Putin to come to the negotiating table.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks with reporters Wednesday at the White House. Evan Vucci/AP

Speaking Wednesday evening on his way to Israel, Secretary of State Marco Rubio held out the prospect of talks with the Russians. “We’d still like to meet with the Russians,” he said. “We still want to. The President has said repeatedly for months that at some point he’d have to do something if we didn’t make progress on the peace deal. Today was the day he decided to do something.”

Trump’s actions came after he met with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Washington on Wednesday.

The EU and the U.K. have also taken action against Russia’s two oil giants.

In July, the EU banned transactions with an Indian refinery that was a major customer of Rosneft. Its new sanctions package, to be approved Thursday, includes a ban on transactions with the company.

The U.K. last week placed sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft, although London placed exemptions on some of Lukoil’s largest overseas investments including the Shah Deniz field in the Caspian Sea.

Trump’s own sanctions strategy against Russia has run hot and cold. He has increased tariffs on countries that purchase Russian energy, like India, to squeeze Moscow’s war coffers and slapped sanctions on Serbia’s main oil supplier, which is majority owned by a Russian state energy company. But he had previously expressed doubts that increasing sanctions on Moscow, which is already under severe pressure from the U.S. and Western allies, would convince Putin to change course during months of prolonged negotiations.

“I don’t know if it’s going to affect Russia, because he wants to obviously probably keep the war going,” Trump said in July. “It may or may not affect them, but it could.”

Aerial view of the Lukoil oil refinery in Volgograd, Russia. Reuters

Senior European officials have long argued that ramping up sanctions on Russia would pressure the Kremlin to move toward serious negotiations to end the war. The EU on Thursday morning approved its 19th package of measures, which will also see the bloc’s growing imports of Russia’s liquefied natural gas banned starting from next year.

The EU is also taking a range of measures to prevent Moscow getting around Western sanctions, including blacklisting 117 additional shadow fleet vessels carrying Russian oil. In addition, the measures place sanctions on a dozen companies in Hong Kong and China and some additional Indian companies for helping Russia’s economy and war machine.

The EU’s China sanctions include action to restrict Russia’s oil trade with Beijing, hitting two refineries and an oil trader, EU diplomats said. Trump has been pressing Europe to expand its sanctions on China for its role in helping Russia’s economy. The EU sanctioned two Chinese banks earlier this year.

The European measures will also tighten restrictions on Russian banks, restrict the movement of Russian diplomats in the bloc and expand the bloc’s powers to sanction foreign ports that allow the transfer of drone and missile parts and Russian oil.

EU leaders are also expected to give their backing on Thursday to a plan that would lend Ukraine as much as $200 billion in Russian assets frozen in the first days of the war. The money is aimed to help keep Ukraine’s military armed for the next two years in a bid to persuade the Kremlin to seek an end to the war.

Lawmakers from both parties are likely to warmly welcome the sanctions announcement. More than 80 senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, signed onto a Russia sanctions bill led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a close Trump ally, targeting countries that purchased Russian energy. But Trump told senators that he wanted full control over the ability to impose sanctions, causing the legislation to languish in the upper chamber.

Write to Robbie Gramer at robbie.gramer@wsj.com, Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com and Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com

3. U.S. Widens Campaign Against Alleged Drug Boats With Eastern Pacific Strike

Is this the war of choice we want to fight? Is this the way we want to fight it?

U.S. Widens Campaign Against Alleged Drug Boats With Eastern Pacific Strike

Two killed in attack as the military targets suspected trafficking in area where large amounts of cocaine typically move

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-widens-campaign-against-alleged-drug-boats-with-eastern-pacific-strike-79ab0cdf

By Shelby Holliday

Follow and Juan Forero

Updated Oct. 22, 2025 5:59 pm ET

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. oliver contreras/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The U.S. said Wednesday it had struck a suspected drug boat on the Pacific side of South America, signaling a widening of its campaign against alleged drug trafficking and transnational crime.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a video of the strike on X and said it took place Tuesday in the eastern Pacific Ocean and killed two people on board the boat, without providing more details about the location.

“The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth said.

The attack on what is known as a go-fast boat is the eighth reported U.S. strike on an alleged drug vessel and brings the announced death toll from the campaign to 34. The seven previous U.S. strikes were carried out in the Caribbean. Two survivors from a strike last week were repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador respectively.

Tuesday’s strike is the first time the U.S. has hit a suspected drug boat in the Pacific, where cocaine from Colombia and Ecuador makes its way north on go-fast boats, submersibles, container vessels and fishing trawlers. Tensions have been running high between President Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro in recent days, with both men accusing the other of being unfit to lead. Trump has said the drug trade is out of control in Colombia, while Petro has said his American counterpart is committing atrocities by ordering strikes on boats.

The U.S. Coast Guard has for years been leading the effort to cut off the flow of drugs by interdicting boats smuggling cocaine, using sharpshooters to disable engines when crew members fail to stop. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced that a Coast Guard operation called Pacific Viper had seized more than 100,000 pounds of cocaine in the eastern Pacific since early August.

The New Militarized War on Drugs—Time to View Cartels as National Security Threats?

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/21/the-new-militarized-war-on-drugs-time-to-view-cartels-as-national-security-threats/

by Jim Crotty

10.21.2025 at 09:42pm

Screen capture of strike on alleged drug-laden semi-submersible vessels in the Caribbean. Source, The White House on X, 18 October 2025, https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1979627240670560502.

In recent months, the Trump administration has sharply escalated its campaign against drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). This includes designatingmultiple cartels and street gangs as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs); ramping up intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in Mexico and Venezuela; ordering the Pentagon to draw up military plans against drug traffickers; directing a buildup of military assets in the Caribbean; authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct covert action; and, of course, destroying multiple alleged drug trafficking vessels on the high seas.

This represents a paradigm shift in how the US perceives and responds to drug trafficking and underscores the administration’s resolve to “ensure the total elimination of these organizations.” They have also raised serious concerns about the legality, morality, and wisdom in resurrecting the so-called “war on drugs.” These are timely and important questions, but I have no interest in rehashing the arguments or trying to settle the debate.

Instead, I’d like to zoom out a bit to explore the underlying policy question at the heart of the debate—is it time to stop thinking of drug cartels as mere criminals, and start treating them national security threats?

More than twenty years ago, as a graduate student at Boston College I wrestled with many of the same questions about the “global war on terrorism.” In my master’s thesis, I wrote about the origins of the 2003 war in Iraq and the various rationales put forward to justify it—the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the regime’s ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, the United States’ desire to control Iraqi oil, and/or the opportunity to bring democracy to the Middle East.

What I found, despite all the rhetoric at the time, was that the decision to go to war in Iraq had little to do with any of those things—it was really borne out of a new and profound sense of vulnerability in the US and the need to “do something” after the 9/11 terror attacks. That “something” was to go on the offensive, to take the fight to our adversaries, and confront “emerging threats before they are fully formed.” The 2002 US National Security Strategy made the case plainly, stating, “The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”

Before 9/11, major acts of terrorism—the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing—were typically treated as criminal acts, handled by law enforcement. After an attack, the US Department of Justice would launch an investigation, gather all the evidence, and ensure justice was served. That’s how it had always been done.

Then 9/11 happened.

It’s almost cliché to say it now, but 9/11 changed everything. In an instant, Americans’ perception of safety was shattered and the traditional approach to counterterrorism seemed quaint, dangerous, and irresponsible. “Facing clear evidence of peril,” the US could no longer “wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” And so, in the years following 9/11, the US fundamentally transformed the US national security apparatus, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), increased information sharing and collaboration among government agencies, and the launch of a new global war on terrorism led primarily by the military and intelligence community, among others.

And it (mostly) worked.

The US is much better equipped to handle terrorist threats than at any time before 9/11. And while we cannot judge an issue as complex as counterterrorism based on a single metric, it’s important to acknowledge that foreign terrorist attacks on US soil have become exceedingly rare. According to an analysis performed by the Cato Institute, “only” 44 people have been killed in the US by foreign-born terrorists in the almost 25 years since 9/11.

Could the same blueprint work against drug trafficking?

Unlike the immediate shock and shared horror of 9/11, the drug crisis has unfolded slowly, lacking a singular event to galvanize national resolve. The drug crisis has sadly been more of a “slow-motion weapon of mass destruction,” that has somehow failed to garner the same sense of outrage and urgency, despite greater social and economic costs. At its peak in 2023, more than 110,000 Americans died from drug overdoses—more than the fatalities of the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. And even with the recent decrease in drug overdoses, illicit drugs are still the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, and cost the United States an estimated $2.7 trillion per year.

The illicit drug threat has changed. Our response should too. Are illicit drugs tantamount to weapons of mass destruction? Are DTOs and TCOs actually terrorists by another name? Is treating the war on drugs like the war on terror a necessary shift that is long overdue?

As the Zen master (in Charlie Wilson’s War) says, we’ll see…

###

The views stated herein are the author’s alone.

About The Author

Jim Crotty
Jim Crotty is the former deputy chief of staff at the US Drug Enforcement Administration. He currently serves as an adjunct professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, sits on the Advisory Board of United Against Fentanyl, and is a member of the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime Network of Experts.

6. A Parade of Senior U.S. Officials Descends on Israel for ‘Bibisitting’ Duty

Excertps:

The U.S. is also taking the lead in a recently established international command center in southern Israel, which will oversee the international effort to stabilize Gaza and was visited by Vance on Tuesday.

Jonathan Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in central Israel, noted that the Biden administration also had generals advising Israel’s defense ministry at the start of the war and that top Biden officials attended Israeli cabinet meetings. But Netanyahu, who is likely to face elections within a year and might need the support of centrist voters, is unlikely to do anything that will put him at odds with Trump as he sometimes was with former President Joe Biden.

Even so, departing from Washington on his way to Israel on Wednesday, Rubio stressed that the cease-fire would require constant attention: “Every day there’ll be threats to the cease-fire,” he told reporters. “The fact that we made it through this weekend is a good sign.”

A Parade of Senior U.S. Officials Descends on Israel for ‘Bibisitting’ Duty

Trump has touted Gaza cease-fire as the ‘historic dawn of a new Middle East,’ but the old Middle East isn’t entirely gone

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/israel-us-officials-visit-gaza-peace-deal-eb4186be

By Vera Bergengruen

Follow, Dov Lieber

Follow and Alexander Ward

Oct. 22, 2025 9:26 pm ET

Vice President JD Vance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Nathan Howard/Press Pool

Quick Summary

High-level U.S. officials are frequently visiting Israel to maintain the Gaza cease-fire, a key foreign-policy achievement.View more

TEL AVIV—Vice President JD Vance is due to fly out of Israel on Thursday, just hours before Secretary of State Marco Rubio flies in. Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were on the ground a few days before.

The high-level relay of U.S. officials descending on Israel is aimed at ensuring the cease-fire deal in Gaza that is President Trump’s most notable foreign-policy achievement to date doesn’t fall apart in its early days.

It wasn’t Trump who dispatched his top advisers to Israel, two senior U.S. officials said. Instead, Rubio and other top administration officials have been coordinating the visits themselves. While Trump has touted the cease-fire as the “historic dawn of a new Middle East,” his aides are doing all they can to make sure the old Middle East doesn’t quickly reappear.

“Keeping the Gaza cease-fire on the rails will require constant high-level administration attention,” says David Schenker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Trump administration.

Vance, special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner Nathan Howard/Press Pool

Israeli media have joked that the high-level visits are a case of “Bibisitting”—near-constant U.S. supervision of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, widely known as “Bibi.”

At a press conference Wednesday, Vance dismissed a question about whether he and other U.S. officials were turning Israel into a “vassal state,” saying he was in Israel to show support for an ally, not to “monitor a toddler.”

It was Netanyahu himself who popularized the term “Bibisitter” in a 2015 election ad. “You ordered a babysitter. You got a Bibisitter,” Netanyahu tells parents after arriving at their door. The message of the ad was to trust Netanyahu and not his opponent.

The left-wing Hebrew newspaper Haaretz published a cartoon Wednesday showing Witkoff, Vance and Kushner standing over Netanyahu, dressed like a child as he plays with a toylike tank and jet fighter. “Just a little more and to bed,” says Witkoff, his hands on his hips.

Netanyahu has repeatedly promised “total victory” over Hamas since the war started in 2023. But the U.S.-designated terror group is so far refusing to disarm and has instead embarked on a violent crackdown to restore its power in Gaza, skirmishing with Israeli troops along the line dividing the two sides.

U.S. officials have privately urged Netanyahu to limit the response to Hamas’s attacks to avoid jeopardizing the cease-fire, while his far-right political partners are calling for restarting the fighting. The crosscutting pressures were clear Sunday after militants killed two Israeli soldiers in southern Gaza.

“War!” demanded Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in a post on X. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir openly urged “full-scale fighting” if Hamas isn’t dismantled.

Israel said it would halt aid to Gaza, an important pillar of the cease-fire agreement, but then walked back that threat the same day after pressure from the U.S., according to Arab mediators and Israeli officials.

That retreat fueled domestic criticism in Israel that Netanyahu had given control of Israeli decision-making over Gaza to U.S. officials. “One week they say that Israel controls the United States. A week later they say the United States controls Israel,” Netanyahu said on Tuesday, standing next to Vance in Jerusalem. “This is hogwash.”

The U.S. is also taking the lead in a recently established international command center in southern Israel, which will oversee the international effort to stabilize Gaza and was visited by Vance on Tuesday.

Jonathan Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University in central Israel, noted that the Biden administration also had generals advising Israel’s defense ministry at the start of the war and that top Biden officials attended Israeli cabinet meetings. But Netanyahu, who is likely to face elections within a year and might need the support of centrist voters, is unlikely to do anything that will put him at odds with Trump as he sometimes was with former President Joe Biden.

Even so, departing from Washington on his way to Israel on Wednesday, Rubio stressed that the cease-fire would require constant attention: “Every day there’ll be threats to the cease-fire,” he told reporters. “The fact that we made it through this weekend is a good sign.”

Write to Vera Bergengruen at vera.bergengruen@wsj.com, Dov Lieber at dov.lieber@wsj.com and Alexander Ward at alex.ward@wsj.com

7. Islamic State Rises Again in Syria, Filling a Void Left by U.S.

Presence, patience, persistence.

Don't give up the high ground.

Islamic State Rises Again in Syria, Filling a Void Left by U.S.

Attacks by the militant group are up as it exploits a reduced American presence and the collapse of the Assad regime

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/islamic-state-rises-again-syria-b1b76045

By Sudarsan Raghavan

Follow | Photographs by Moises Saman/Magnum for WSJ

Oct. 22, 2025 9:00 pm ET

HAJIN, Syria—The two American-backed Kurdish soldiers were riding in a pickup truck past a row of shops when Islamic State militants on motorcycles opened fire with AK-47s, killing them both.

A shop owner near the site said it was the first Islamic State attack on the road. “We are all afraid,” he said, visibly shaken a day after the ambush. “They have returned to our city.”

The soldiers were with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which fought with the U.S. to bring down an Islamic State empire in Syria and Iraq that at its peak ruled millions of people and pulled in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in extortion and taxes.

Six years later, that rare, decisive victory over militancy is being eroded. Islamic State, now a decentralized mobile insurgency, is exploiting a reduced American presence and the collapse of Bashar-al Assad’s regime in Syria to enlist new recruits and widen its reach, said U.S. and Kurdish military commanders.

The group is freshly equipped after raiding arms depots late last year after rebels took Damascus and the regime’s army and its Iranian allies fled. It isn’t able to hold territory, but it is contributing to a sense of lawlessness that’s adding to the stress on the new state.

Islamic State militants staged 117 attacks in northeast Syria through the end of August, far outpacing the 73 attacks in all of 2024, according to SDF figures. They have also plotted attacks in the capital, 270 miles away from their bases of operation in the east, Syria’s government said.

Many of its assaults in the northeast were in Deir Ezzour province, a desert region the size of Maryland that is home to most of the country’s estimated 3,000 Islamic State fighters. A weeklong trip through the province’s towns showed how the militant group is adapting its tactics to again make its influence felt—by killing representatives of the area’s Kurdish rulers, renewing its demands for payments, and sowing fear.

“The withdrawal of American forces is inspiring Daesh,” said Goran Tel Tamir, a top regional SDF commander, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State. “We see them launching more attacks on us. We are getting more complaints from people. This is putting us in a difficult position.”

A day after the ambush, The Wall Street Journal joined an SDF convoy of more than 20 vehicles led by Tel Tamir to patrol Hajin. It drove along the potholed, rural road leading into the small eastern city and stopped at the site of the attack. Shattered glass was still strewn across the road.

Syria’s Deir Ezzour province

Turkey

Raqqa

Aleppo

Deir Ezzour

Cyprus

Syria

Homs

Hajin

DEIR EZZOUR

PROVINCE

Leb.

Mediterranean Sea

Damascus

Iraq

Isr.

50 miles

Jordan

50 km

The militants shoot and run, Tel Tamir said, but they are also finding support in Sunni-dominated towns like Hajin, which was once a major stronghold for Islamic State. As the SDF convoy rolled by, men and boys glared from storefronts. Women wore black niqabs, the ultraconservative head-to-ankle garment that covers the body and face.

Islamic State emerged from the chaos of Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 and took advantage of the instability unleashed in Syria by the Arab Spring to capture swaths of territory. It declared a caliphate in 2014 and ruled 8 million to 12 million people at its peak.

The militants attracted hundreds of foreign fighters and became known for public beheadings and the enslavement of women. Loyalties in some towns were divided between Islamic State and the militias that opposed it.

An SDF patrol moved along the outskirts of Hajin.

In 2017, U.S. coalition forces and the SDF drove Islamic State from its capital of Raqqa, forcing its remnants to retreat into Deir Ezzour province. After major battles in Hajin and other towns, thousands of Islamic State fighters and their families surrendered. Thousands still sit in detention camps in the area. Others melted into sympathetic, conservative Sunni Arab communities and are trying to rebuild.

While Islamic State is digging in, the U.S. has ramped down. Since April, the U.S. has pulled out around 500 of the 2,000 American troops in Syria and shut down multiple bases or handed them over to the SDF, which controls a swath of Syria’s northeast. In the coming months, the troop count could drop below 1,000, the Pentagon said. Much of the drawdown has occurred in eastern Syria, particularly Deir Ezzour.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the reductions reflect U.S. success in degrading the group.

In August, the inspector general for the U.S. military’s Syria and Iraq mission against Islamic State said the U.S. and its partners have had significant success keeping the militants from regaining control of territory, but said Islamic State militants were trying to exploit Syria’s volatile and fragmented state to rebuild. The Department of Homeland Security says the group wants to conduct or inspire attacks in the U.S.

Islamic State militants targeted SDF patrols 20 times in May, leaving 15 soldiers wounded and 10 dead, including the two in the pickup truck. SDF commanders said it was the deadliest month for their troops since 2019, when Islamic State was driven from the last of the territory it controlled.

In August, at least seven SDF soldiers were killed, including five in a single day. In the first week of September, the militants launched eight attacks in Deir Ezzour alone. On Monday, two soldiers were killed there by a land mine planted by an Islamic State cell, the SDF said.

SDF commanders said Islamic State’s tactics have changed. They now work in small sleeper cells—sometimes with several cells in a town, each unaware of the others. They get orders to stage ambushes and plant improvised explosive devices on roads. It’s an inexpensive arrangement that is hard to stamp out.

“They depend on small groups, four or five people, for one operation,” said Siymend Ali, a spokesman for the People’s Defense Units, the main militia within the SDF alliance. “In this way, they are saving a lot of money. Everyone has one AK-47 and an explosive device.”

Children took a break from collecting garbage and begging in Naim Square in Raqqa, Syria.

Militants no longer wear uniforms or carry their trademark black flags. Most are Syrian nationals, allowing them to blend easily into local populations.

SDF’s senior leaders are prime targets. Islamic State has assassinated several of them this year.

Khabat Shaydi, a commander in the SDF’s military council for Hajin, was heading a four-vehicle convoy to inspect SDF checkpoints in March, when Islamic State militants yelling “Allahu akbar”—God is great—fired three rocket-propelled grenades from a cluster of houses.

Two of his soldiers were severely injured. After a 10-minute firefight, the half-dozen attackers fled with their wounded across the Euphrates River into areas controlled by Syria’s government, which SDF commanders say are more lightly patrolled.

Later that day, Shaydi, who was lightly injured, got a call on his cellphone. The voice said, “Infidel. You survived. Next time, we’ll kill you,” then hung up.

Shaydi, himself a Sunni Arab, recognized the voice. It was a member of his own tribe, the Al-Shaitat.

For Shaydi, the attack brought back dark memories. His tribe revolted against Islamic State’s authority in 2014 but was put down with a campaign of shootings and beheadings that left hundreds dead, including some of his relatives.

The next year, he and some of his tribesmen joined the SDF determined to exact revenge and regain control of their tribal lands. Others took the opposite path and joined or were conscripted into Islamic State.

An SDF patrol on the outskirts of Hajin.

Today, Islamic State fighters ride motorcycles openly around the streets of Diban, about 30 miles to the north, said Muhammad Al Bou Herdan, an oil investor who fled the town eight months ago.

One day, a group of militants phoned him and demanded he pay zakat—an Islamic tithe—in the amount of $1,000. He said it was standard practice in Diban, one of several towns where Islamic State has many sympathizers and exerts influence through intimidation. A masked man came to his home and picked up the cash.

“They were watching me and all my movements,” Al Bou Herdan said. “They knew all the details about my work and my family. I couldn’t escape paying.”

Two months later, an Islamic State militant from a different cell phoned and also demanded $1,000. When Al Bou Herdan told them he had already paid, the militant said he was lying and threatened to target his small oil refinery and his home if he didn’t pay. Al Bou Herdan politely refused and blocked the phone number, he said.

Later, he spotted two men on a motorcycle at the gates of his refinery, where he had three employees. “The moment I saw them, I knew they were looking for me,” Al Bou Herdan said. “I turned my car around and drove away fast. They started shooting.”

One of his workers was shot and killed. Al Bou Herdan shut down his refinery and fled to Hajin. He changed his phone number and closed his social-media accounts. He carries a gun. His two cousins, also armed, protect him day and night.

Farhad Shami, an SDF spokesperson, said the group has received many reports of similar cases of extortion.

While the SDF controls much of Syria’s northeast, its troops are stretched thin. In addition to patrolling the territory, they are responsible for guarding camps and prisons housing nearly 50,000 former Islamic State fighters, along with their wives and children. The SDF has asked foreign countries to take back their citizens there, but most haven’t.

Iraqi families associated with Islamic State waited to be repatriated from a camp in northeast Syria.

Since the Assad regime fell, the Kurdish-led forces has also fought on-and-off battles with militias backed by longtime foe Turkey. In August, they found themselves in confrontations with forces linked to Syria’s new government. They recently clashed again in the northwestern city of Aleppo.

The government and SDF signed an accord in March under which the Kurdish-led forces were to be integrated into the Syrian army and government, but it has been eroding amid mistrust between the two sides, creating room for Islamic State to strengthen its foothold.

“This area is too big, and the Damascus government is unable to control it,” Tel Tamir said. “Daesh is taking advantage of that.”

Syria’s Ministry of Information acknowledged that “a security gap” exists due to the government’s limited forces and lack of control over all areas, allowing armed groups to move and operate more freely. Nevertheless, security forces have successfully disrupted Islamic State cells in Damascus and thwarted planned attacks, said the ministry.

“While ISIS continues to pose a danger, the government remains fully committed to containing and eradicating it,” the ministry said.

Under the Assad regime, Arab tribes and the Kurds in the northeast were unified by their resistance to the minority Alawite regime in Damascus. Now, some Sunni Muslim Arab communities prefer to be governed by Syria’s new leaders, who are mostly Sunni Muslim Arabs, rather than the Kurdish-led local government.

President Ahmed al-Sharaa was once aligned with Islamic State before switching allegiances to Al-Qaeda, then ultimately swore off extremism as he and his forces fought to control Syria. Distrust lingers. Some SDF commanders question whether former jihadists in the government have renounced their hard-line ideology, allowing Islamic State operatives to move unhindered.

“These claims are politically motivated and have no basis in fact,” said the Syrian Ministry of Information.

The site of a former gas plant in Deir Ezzour that was seized by Islamic State and later recaptured by the SDF.

The SDF has alienated some by arbitrarily detaining hundreds of civilians “during mass raids carried out under the pretext of pursuing [Islamic State] cells,” the Syrian Network for Human Rights said in a report in August.

The U.S. military has helped keep ethnic and religious tensions from boiling over. It brokered a truce after clashes erupted two years ago when the SDF arrested a prominent Sunni military commander. Tensions are expected to rise with the reduced U.S. presence, the Inspector General report said in August.

U.S. forces continue to help the SDF with technology and intelligence to track Islamic State, and provide air support for SDF operations. The U.S. military said its forces killed a senior Islamic State leader along with his sons in July, and another in August.

Still, SDF commanders in Deir Ezzour are feeling the Americans’ absence. Instead of interacting face to face, they now send requests for help to senior commanders hundreds of miles away, who then pass them to the U.S. military, Tel Tamir said.

As the convoy departed Hajin and headed back to the SDF base, it passed former American encampments that sat empty in the desert behind thick barriers topped with barbed wire.

The Americans used to conduct daily patrols, many with the SDF, that helped deter Islamic State and reassure the population, Tel Tamir said nostalgically.

“When people here see the Americans, they feel safe,” he said.

Write to Sudarsan Raghavan at sudarsan.raghavan@wsj.com

8. President Trump’s Push for Bagram Air Base: Strategic Miscalculation or Political Posturing?

Excertps:

Mr. Trump’s demand to retake Bagram is more political spectacle than a calculated tactic. Although it disregards Afghan sovereignty, practical realities, and the balance of regional security, it appeals to hawkish voters and veterans. A U.S. return would be unfeasible and strategically expensive due to Taliban rejection, the likelihood of an asymmetric conflict, and potential reaction from China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan.

The concept highlights a larger problem: America’s ongoing pursuit of symbols of strength to cover up more profound fears of decline. Power in today’s world is not determined by holding on to fortified fortresses in adverse terrain, but rather by the ability to combine technology, alliances, and diplomacy with mobility.

The lesson is obvious for Washington and its allies, including Britain, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia. Reoccupying the sites of previous conflicts is not the path to lasting impact; rather, it requires networks, crucial technologies, and multilateral legitimacy. The question is whether American leaders can finally put Afghanistan’s ghosts behind them and concentrate on creating a multipolar order in which strength is defined by strategy rather than symbolism.

President Trump’s Push for Bagram Air Base: Strategic Miscalculation or Political Posturing?

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/23/president-trumps-push-for-bagram-air-base-strategic-miscalculation-or-political-posturing/

by Sami Omari

10.23.2025 at 06:00am

A symbolic push for Bagram risks a regional escalation drawing in Russia, Iran, and China.

Introduction

An old dispute has been rekindled by President Donald Trump. He demanded that the United States retake Afghanistan’s Bagram Airbase, formerly the region’s center of coalition logistics, intelligence, and counterterrorism, during a recent news conference held in the United Kingdom. Abandoned during the chaotic 2021 pullout, Bagram has become a symbol of both the end of two decades of war and the limits of U.S. action. Mr. Trump views reversing it as a response to China’s increasing regional influence and conveys more than just military aspirations. Deeper concerns about America’s place in the world, the unsolved lessons learned from Afghanistan, and whether symbolic assets can take the place of sound policy are hidden beneath hyperbole.

Geopolitical Context

The importance of Bagram is rooted in its history and geography. Constructed with Soviet assistance in the 1950s, it served as the core of Soviet operations throughout the war of 1979–1989 and, after 2001, as the nerve center for the United States and NATO. When Mr. Trump presented it as a counter-China asset, he emphasized that its location at the intersection of South and Central Asia allows it access to Pakistan, Iran, and Western China. Reoccupation, however, would elicit considerably more than Afghan opposition. Tehran would strengthen its tactical cooperation with the Taliban, Moscow would see encirclement and rely on Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to prevent Washington from accessing other countries, and the Taliban would categorically oppose any U.S. involvement. A symbolic push for Bagram risks a regional escalation drawing in Russia, Iran, and China.

Operationally, retaking Bagram is a comprehensive campaign rather than a small-scale effort. According to analysts, billions of dollars, air lanes, and tens of thousands of troops would be required. Cheap drones would convert the facility into a besieged fortress rather than a platform for projecting power, and such deployments would expose U.S. personnel to Iran-backed militias, IS-K militants, and Taliban fighters. This contradicts Pentagon doctrine, which now favors distributed, adaptable basing over vulnerable permanent hubs. Reviving Bagram would overstretch already-distributed resources and bind Washington to the very intervention model deemed unsustainable following Iraq and Afghanistan. This would not restore U.S. credibility.

Military Feasibility and Operational Risk

Regaining Bagram would require a full-scale campaign rather than a tactical change. Tens of thousands of soldiers, extensive supply routes, and safe airways would be needed at a cost of billions of dollars and exposing American forces to asymmetric warfare. Both the Taliban and jihadist competitors, seeking legitimacy through resistance, will target U.S. soldiers because Kabul has been ruled by the Taliban since 2021 and under attack from Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS-K). Additionally, parties supported by Iran might organize, intensifying the battle and raising the stakes.

In the age of drones, fixed bases are particularly at risk. Cheap drones are now used by non-state players, such as IS-K and militias with ties to Iran, which could make Bagram a high-value target rather than a base from which to project force. In terms of strategy, this action runs counter to U.S. policy, which advocates distributed and agile basing in an effort to minimize vulnerabilities. In addition to overstretching American resources, between European commitments and China deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, reoccupying Bagram would bring back a model that was already discredited in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Domestic Political Calculations

Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on Bagram is directed both internationally and toward American voters. He appeals to U.S veteran communities who feel betrayed by the 2021 withdrawal by bringing up the base. To this community, reclaiming Bagram is a metaphor for “restoring pride” because, to them, it represents more than simply infrastructure, it represents twenty years of sacrifice. Mr. Trump’s threats that “bad things” will occur if Afghanistan resists are consistent with his larger political approach, which involves energizing supporters without committing to expensive policy and projecting toughness through ambiguity to keep rivals guessing.

However, the American people are still tired with Afghanistan. There is minimal desire for redeployment, according to surveys and congressional discussions since 2021. Another involvement in the Middle East would conflict with long-term goals, as U.S. strategy is currently moving towards the Indo-Pacific. As a result, Mr. Trump’s portrayal of Bagram appears less like a calculated strategy and more like political staging meant to contrast his own actions with former President Joseph Biden’s disorganized retreat.

Regional Implications

China: Beijing could become closer to the Taliban if the U.S. returned to Bagram. Instead of containing it, this would encourage China to deepen its economic and diplomatic ties in Afghanistan by expanding CPEC projects and resource ventures.
India: striking a balance would be challenging for New Delhi. India may be forced to balance greater connections with Washington against regional autonomy and tactful engagement with Kabul, even though a U.S. presence might provide leverage against China.
Pakistan: Islamabad would consider reoccupation to be an immediate danger to its influence in Afghanistan. In order to strengthen its reliance on Kabul for strategic depth, possible reactions include intensifying proxy warfare, strengthening ties with the Taliban, and putting pressure on counterterrorism cooperation with Washington.
Iran: A U.S. return would be viewed as provocative by Tehran. It may exploit Afghanistan as a new theatre of conflict, escalating coordination with the Taliban and bolstering broader regional opposition to U.S. hegemony. It is already suspicious of American bases in the Gulf.
Russia: A U.S. re-entry would be seen by Moscow as an infringement on its security zone. Bagram’s reoccupation may lead to more robust pledges from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and a military build-up in Central Asia, as it has positioned itself as a mediator with the Taliban since 2021. To offset American influence, the Kremlin could increase cooperation with China and Iran.

Diplomatic Channels and Strategic Alternatives

Although Washington has the means to protect its interests without reoccupation, Mr. Trump portrays Bagram as essential. Today, multilateralism, technology, and diplomacy provide more credible leverage than permanent bases in hostile environments.

Power in today’s world is not determined by holding on to fortified fortresses in adverse terrain, but rather by the ability to combine technology, alliances, and diplomacy with mobility.

One path is across Central Asia. The U.S. could get overflight privileges, logistics hubs, or restricted facilities by strengthening its relations with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, maintaining access while upholding Afghan sovereignty. Additionally, such actions would protect against Russia’s regional influence and China’s imprint.

Another route is through technology. Current Pentagon policy prioritizes accuracy and mobility, long-range drones, offshore platforms, and AI-enabled satellites offer continuous monitoring and strike capability without the drawbacks of terrestrial garrisons. Mr. Trump’s fixation on Bagram fails to acknowledge the progress made by the U.S. since 2021.

Lastly, international involvement increases legitimacy and distributes risk. The costs of unilateral deployments can be avoided by coordinating action against terrorism and drug flows through the United Nations, NATO, and regional forums. Multilateralism conveys a dedication to communal security rather than a longing for antiquated emblems.

Strategic Lessons

Mr. Trump’s pursuit of Bagram highlights the tension that exists between the need for physical power symbols and the demands of modern warfare, which is a common topic in U.S. policy. Bagram could evoke strong feelings, but securing policy in abandoned strongholds could lead to repeating past mistakes. Reoccupation would give adversaries opportunities; China, Russia, and Iran would exploit American overreach to bolster their own might. For allies, the message is equally clear: Mr. Trump’s remarks highlight how quickly Middle Eastern concerns can divert Washington’s attention and cause it to lose focus on the Indo-Pacific. In particular, Australia needs to prepare for such scenario and make sure that its own plan is not dependent on the political whims of the United States.

Conclusion

Mr. Trump’s demand to retake Bagram is more political spectacle than a calculated tactic. Although it disregards Afghan sovereignty, practical realities, and the balance of regional security, it appeals to hawkish voters and veterans. A U.S. return would be unfeasible and strategically expensive due to Taliban rejection, the likelihood of an asymmetric conflict, and potential reaction from China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan.

The concept highlights a larger problem: America’s ongoing pursuit of symbols of strength to cover up more profound fears of decline. Power in today’s world is not determined by holding on to fortified fortresses in adverse terrain, but rather by the ability to combine technology, alliances, and diplomacy with mobility.

The lesson is obvious for Washington and its allies, including Britain, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia. Reoccupying the sites of previous conflicts is not the path to lasting impact; rather, it requires networks, crucial technologies, and multilateral legitimacy. The question is whether American leaders can finally put Afghanistan’s ghosts behind them and concentrate on creating a multipolar order in which strength is defined by strategy rather than symbolism.

Tags: Bagram Air Base

About The Author

Sami Omari
SAMI OMARI is an Afghan-born international relations, diplomatic and policy consultant with extensive experience alongside NATO, ISAF, the U.S. Department of State, and diplomatic missions on governance, conflict, and legal reform in fragile states. He previously served as a prosecutor, legal advisor, and cultural affairs advisor in Afghanistan, and served as the Government Liaison Manager for NATO in Afghanistan during the US-Taliban Doha agreement and the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners. Now based in Australia, he is a Strategic Consultant on South and Central Asian Security and Strategic affairs and currently completing a Master’s in International Relations at Flinders University, Australia.

9. Turning Back the Clock: Leveraging Game Theory Across the Conflict Continuum

Excerpt:

The nature of a negotiated settlement after a conflict determines the subsequent position of actors in the conflict continuum, shaping whether the post-conflict environment leans towards competition, crisis, or renewed conflict. Historical and contemporary case studies demonstrate a correlation, at the very least, between game theory, negotiation frameworks, and the conflict continuum. We are also running out of time. The clock is ticking; ultimately, conflict and negotiation are just language games. As Wittgenstein wrote in his “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” In the conflict continuum, when the space for mutual understanding and negotiation collapses, silence is replaced by crisis, and ultimately, by war. The challenge for military leaders and strategists is to recognize and protect the fragile space where language still holds.

Turning Back the Clock: Leveraging Game Theory Across the Conflict Continuum

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/22/turning-back-the-clock-leveraging-game-theory-across-the-conflict-continuum/

by Peyton E. Ugolini, by Paul L. Knudsen

10.22.2025 at 06:00am

Introduction

Eighty-nine seconds to midnight; this is the current time on the Doomsday Clock, maintained in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. When the clock hits midnight, it means the extinction of humanity is at hand. Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer founded this organization in 1945. It is not a surprise that those who worked on the Manhattan Project would use nuclear risk and global conflict as indicators of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe. Over time, this has evolved to examine various sources of global risks, including emerging technologies and diseases. As we approach midnight, policymakers need to determine how to reset the clock.

The nature of a negotiated settlement after a conflict determines the subsequent position of actors in the conflict continuum, shaping whether the post-conflict environment leans towards competition, crisis, or renewed conflict. Each phase of the conflict continuum corresponds with a greater likelihood of specific game theory opportunities, such that the competition phase enables positive-sum outcomes, crisis engenders zero-sum outcomes, and conflict creates a landscape favoring negative-sum outcomes. To illustrate this, this article will first provide a brief overview of the conflict continuum, game theory, and military operations. Then it will examine several case studies, spanning from historical to contemporary. Following the examination of these case studies, the framework will then consider practical applications including Professional Military Education (PME) and negotiation preparation. Finally, this investigation will respond to potential counterpoints and conclude with a summary of the information discussed.

Background Information

The Conflict Continuum identifies three broad phases of international engagement: Competition, Crisis, and Conflict. Competition below armed conflict exists when two or more nations have incompatible interests but are not seeking armed conflict. Crisis is the gray zone where an emerging threat is detected, and a nation will respond. Crisis could be the result of an adversarial state or non-state actor, or even the mere threat or warning of such an actor. It is also important to note that a crisis can exist when any instrument of national power is threatened or weakened. Armed conflict is the use of violence as the primary means to achieve an objective. Competition is the desired phase of the continuum because this is the time when a nation can prepare for crisis and armed conflict. It is also worth noting that, during the competition phase of the continuum, a nation retains all the advantages of its instruments of national power (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic, otherwise known as DIME). As we transition from competition to armed conflict, we lose our ability to utilize all instruments of national power effectively.

Figure 1. The conflict continuum represented as an arrow spanning from competition to conflict. Inside of the arrow you can see the probability of each type of game-theory outcome with green representing positive-sum, yellow representing zero-sum, and red representing negative-sum outcomes. (Ownership of this image is that of the authors.)

The terms positive-sum (win-win), zero-sum (win-lose), and negative-sum (lose-lose) are borrowed from game theory. A common analogy to conceptualize game theory involves multiple actors sharing hypothetical pies of varying proportions. An example of a positive-sum outcome would be if two people brought together all the ingredients for a pie and then baked one together. Both parties now have pie; this is a win-win. In zero-sum outcomes, there is a finite amount of pie, and one person’s gain comes at a direct loss to the other. This is a win-lose situation. In a negative-sum outcome, the pie is actively shrinking at the expense of both parties. This is a lose-lose situation.

Military operations, at their core, are three things simultaneously: they are human endeavors, they are conducted in dynamic and uncertain environments, and, ultimately, they are designed to achieve a specific political purpose. These operations are all executed within the context of the conflict continuum. Negotiations share many of the same characteristics as military operations, but are seldom, if ever, examined through the lens of the conflict continuum. In addition to the terms borrowed from game theory, there are two other terms commonly used in military operations that involve negotiation at any level. The first is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), which is the point at which each party would revert if an agreement is not reached. The second term is the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), which is the range in which both parties can reach an agreement.

Historical and Contemporary Case Studies

Armed conflict necessitates political action to both initiate and terminate. Negotiated settlements are among the few effective ways to end armed conflict. There are plenty of armed conflicts to examine as case studies, but no paper on settlements would be complete without considering the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles represents a negative-sum outcome, where the punitive terms imposed on Germany, combined with the geopolitical failures of the Allies, led to economic ruin, political instability, and the eventual resurgence of global war, leaving all major actors worse off than before. In this case study, the result of a negative-sum settlement was renewed conflict. Another insight from this case study is the failure to consider secondary and tertiary consequences in favor of focusing on short-term gains. Now, let us examine armed conflicts that have resulted in negotiated settlements, which can be viewed as a zero-sum outcome.

Crisis or competition below armed conflict can be more challenging to narrow down, as it is often referred to as the “gray zone”. Starting with Israel in 1948 with the war for independence, there is an observed trend of zero-sum outcomes, which includes the Six-Day War (1967), the Lebanon War (1982), and Operation Protective Edge (2014). This falls into the category of zero-sum due to the territorial loss to the Arab nations and the gain of Israel. In each of these conflicts, negotiations eventually led to the end of armed conflict; however, it did not move their relations with their neighbors into the competition phase of the conflict continuum. This has a significant impact on Israel’s ability to leverage all of its instruments of national power, specifically making it difficult for Israel to effectively use its diplomatic power in the international community, limiting its ability to control the themes and messages in the informational domain, and continuing to limit its economic engagement with several of its neighbors. The existence of positive-sum outcomes is evident in Israel, providing a case study, so we will now examine that outcome and its lasting impacts.

There is one notable example of conflict reverting to competition in Israel’s history. The Yom Kippur War between Egypt and Israel (1973) culminated in the Camp David Accords (1978) and the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (1979). This is the first example of a positive sum outcome that we continue to see the impacts of to this day. This negotiated settlement was a positive-sum agreement for several reasons, paramount among which is that Israel gained international recognition from Egypt, while Egypt retained control of the Suez Canal. More than 40 years later, a durable and stable peace remains between Israel and Egypt.

Figure 2. The conflict continuum and game theory overlayed with historical case studies showing the status of the conflict continuum following post-conflict negotiations.

Summary and Future Application

We can observe a correlation between a negotiated settlement’s status within game theory and the resulting position of the participating actors on the conflict continuum. There is almost no existing literature that applies game theory to negotiation frameworks and then contextualizes them within the conflict continuum. Military operations and negotiation framework, even in our doctrine, treat them as separate fields of study. The long-term future application is to incorporate negotiation education into the professional military education model, utilizing either the same or a similar framework to how we approach military operations. Even if soldiers are not diplomats, they need to understand wartime negotiation at a minimum so that they can advise their civilian counterparts.

In the context of the conflict continuum, it is recognized that military operations will often necessitate a degree of negotiation, especially when looking at security cooperation agreements in the Indo-Pacific. Formal education on negotiation often lacks several key factors that could prepare leaders to conduct negotiations effectively or advise partners on how to do the same. The most immediate future application is the need to approach negotiations in the same way as planning military operations is approached. Specifically, incorporating aspects of the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), “Mission Analysis,” into our preparation before entering negotiations. Understanding the operating environment (OE) is paramount to any military operation, and this principle should also apply to negotiations. By conducting a PMESII-PT (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment, and Time) crosswalk, negotiators can identify areas of potential positive-sum cooperation before the negotiation begins. This also allows negotiators to adjust the ZOPA or aspiration by thinking outside of the box.

Finally, the most important future application is utilizing the predictive nature of this novel framework to adjust our Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). It is paramount that negotiators do not continue to believe that the status quo is the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). The likelihood of competition turning into a crisis is too great, especially in the Indo-Pacific. This is also held in other regions of the world, such as the Middle East. A great modern example is the most recent Israel-US-Iran conflict. We can say definitively that this conflict centers around nuclear proliferation. We also know that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was framed as a positive-sum agreement in 2015; however, after the United States’ withdrawal in 2018, it has quickly evolved into a negative-sum outcome, culminating in armed conflict.

Reaction and Counteraction

A critical part of the military decision-making process is course of action analysis, otherwise known as war-gaming. At this point we will war-game our own framework to find its weakest point and answer any critics. When attempting to use the predictive nature of the framework it becomes clear that determining the corresponding game-theory outcome is difficult. Predicting outcomes, like wargaming, requires careful consideration. In fact, the answer to reducing the subjectivity of determining outcomes can be solved by applying steps 4, and 5 of MDMP to the negotiations process. When we are “war-gaming” the potential outcome of a negotiated settlement we will need an arbitrator who can properly analyze the actions, reactions, and counteractions of the actors. Only then can we compare one potential settlement with another using an evaluation criterion. Even then, as we discussed earlier, like military operations, negotiations are human endeavors that also take place in dynamic and uncertain environments.

Conclusion

The nature of a negotiated settlement after a conflict determines the subsequent position of actors in the conflict continuum, shaping whether the post-conflict environment leans towards competition, crisis, or renewed conflict. Historical and contemporary case studies demonstrate a correlation, at the very least, between game theory, negotiation frameworks, and the conflict continuum. We are also running out of time. The clock is ticking; ultimately, conflict and negotiation are just language games. As Wittgenstein wrote in his “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” In the conflict continuum, when the space for mutual understanding and negotiation collapses, silence is replaced by crisis, and ultimately, by war. The challenge for military leaders and strategists is to recognize and protect the fragile space where language still holds.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Government.

Tags: Conflict Continuum, Escalation, Game theory, INDO-PACIFIC, Middle East, Negotiation, peacebuilding, Professional Military Education, strategy

About The Authors

Peyton E. Ugolini
SSG Peyton E. Ugolini is currently serving in the 5th Security Forces Assistance Brigade (SFAB) as a Medical Advisor. He has served eight years in the US Army supporting the Infantry and Air-Defense-Artillery, with several deployments to the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. He holds a bachelor’s in general studies with a concentration in civic engagement and is applying to graduate schools.
View all posts
Paul L. Knudsen
MAJ Paul L. Knudsen is the Brigade Operations Officer for the 5th Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB). He has served sixteen years in the US Army, both in the Infantry and Special Forces, with numerous deployments throughout the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. He holds dual bachelor’s degrees in Chinese and Human Geography from the United States Military Academy and a Master’s Degree in Non-Standard Logistics from Purdue University.

10. As China’s leaders chart the next 5-year plan, they hear echoes from long ago

Is history rhyming for China?

As China’s leaders chart the next 5-year plan, they hear echoes from long ago

Growing geopolitical challenges of today resemble those faced in the 1950s as Beijing seeks to navigate a complex new security landscape

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3329953/chinas-leaders-chart-next-5-year-plan-they-hear-echoes-long-ago

Meredith Chen

Published: 6:47pm, 22 Oct 2025

As China’s leadership meets this week to chart a policy course for the 15th five-year plan – China’s development blueprint for the rest of the decade – events that unfolded more than 70 years ago are echoing again.

The growing external challenges of today have similarities to those the country faced in the 1950s – export controls, restricted access to technology and a complex security environment. Amid elevated US-China tensions, Beijing is facing another moment of reckoning at a crossroads between pressure and transformation.

On Monday, China’s ruling Communist Party kicked off its fourth plenum of the Central Committee, a key four-day conclave that will map out its next five-year plan from 2026 to 2030, a period seen as crucial for Beijing to gain a stronger foothold in its growing rivalry with the United States.

On Monday morning, Xinhua published an article stating that over the past five years, China had “navigated shifting circumstances amid storms and challenges to forge new paths”.

The current global geopolitical landscape mirrors the Cold War era, with the former US-Soviet rivalry largely replaced by the escalating US-China competition, with historical parallels particularly visible in economic and security dynamics.

When Beijing launched its first five-year plan amid US sanctions during the Korean war, trade embargoes and isolation forced China to adopt state economic planning to industrialise in defiance of containment, and the country faced mounting concerns over regional security threats.

Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily published an editorial in 1953 announcing the country’s first five-year plan to transform China from an agricultural economy into an industrial powerhouse. Photo: Handout

On January 1, 1953, People’s Daily announced the country’s first five-year plan in an editorial titled “Embracing the Great Tasks of 1953”, outlining the goal of transforming China from a backward agricultural economy into an industrial powerhouse. China began practising and evolving its distinctive state-led economic model, remaking itself into the world’s second-largest economy with a growing presence in hi-tech sectors.

China’s strategic imperative to accelerate its national self-reliance and technological advancement across key sectors has taken on renewed significance as the US has sought to restrict Beijing’s access to critical industries, notably semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI), with the administration of US President Donald Trump publicly musing about higher tariffs.

China’s hi-tech capabilities have advanced considerably since the 1950s. Photo: Xinhua

The US and China have increasingly articulated narratives that portray each other as a fundamental challenge to the established international order. The dynamic echoes systemic ideological and strategic opposition that characterised the West and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.

Similar to its strategy in the previous century, the US has stepped up coordination with its allies and partners across the Asia-Pacific region amid heightened concern over the potential for direct conflict.

SCMP Plus is a new premium news platform that gives you an all-inclusive edge to stay ahead on China news. To access our exclusive content you’ll need to subscribe.

UPGRADE

Already a subscriber?

In the years following its establishment in 1949, after decades of war, the People’s Republic of China faced the challenges of a shattered economy, widespread poverty and a weak industrial foundation, while much of the world was defined by stark Cold War divisions.

Amid comprehensive US sanctions that obstructed economic recovery and growth, the new socialist state urgently required capital, supplies and technology to rebuild.

Washington refused to recognise the new government and instead maintained diplomatic ties with Chiang Kai-shek’s regime in Taiwan, imposing a policy of political isolation on Beijing and restricting exports of strategic goods.

US aid was tied to the enforcement of the embargo, forcing allied nations to sever normal trade relations with China and other communist states. China was also excluded from international financial help.

In November 1949, the US spearheaded the establishment of the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls, an informal multilateral organisation through which America and its allies in Europe, as well as Canada and Japan, coordinated controls on their exports to the Soviet Union and its allies.

US and Chinese forces were among those that fought a prolonged armed conflict during the Korean war, which broke out in June 1950. Washington further escalated its measures, and by December 1950, had imposed a comprehensive blockade, trade embargo and foreign asset freeze on China.

As US-China tensions escalate again, the second Trump administration has imposed a series of tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports, aiming to cut the trade deficit and revive domestic manufacturing, while restrictions on China’s tech and defence sectors, which started during his first term eight years ago, have been broadened.

Fentanyl, soybeans, chips, port fees, rare earths and other strategic materials are among the key issues in play as a fragile trade truce nears expiration, with both sides exchanging tit-for-tat sanctions and curbs.

China had claimed that its intervention in the Korean war was due in part to concerns that the US might invade its territory through the northeast border. Beijing had also sought to demonstrate solidarity with the communist bloc.

‘Made in China 2025’: how has the nation changed 10 years after setting its manufacturing blueprint?

Beijing’s ambition to achieve national reunification by bringing Taiwan under its control was also put on hold by the outbreak of the war, and the US swiftly sent its Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait.

Today, rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea have prompted Beijing to enhance defence readiness, while Washington closely monitors China’s growing military capabilities, citing it as a threat to regional stability.

As in the 1950s, the US-led West was far from united. While the US pressed for strict embargoes and export controls on China, some of its European allies, such as Britain and France, hesitated over concerns about trade losses, colonial interests and the risk of an escalating conflict with the Soviet Union.

The early fractures of that transatlantic alliance mirror challenges facing the US allies of today, as Washington and its partners navigate their own differing priorities in response to China’s rise.

Meredith Chen

Meredith Chen joined the Post in 2023 and covers China politics and diplomacy. She holds a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Hong Kong. Previously, she had stints with both international and Chinese-language media outlets, focusing on affairs in Asia.

11. China says it’s a responsible force in AI, but most Americans see US leadership as crucial

I heard a presentation yesterday and the fundamental question in the AI competition is whether we want to establish the rules for AI or do we want to let China set the rules?

China says it’s a responsible force in AI, but most Americans see US leadership as crucial

Recent capacity-building forum in Shanghai and poll of Americans highlight contrasting takes on a focal point in the China-US tech rivalry

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3329936/china-says-its-responsible-force-ai-most-americans-see-us-leadership-crucial?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article

Zhao Ziwen

Published: 5:10pm, 22 Oct 2025Updated: 6:59pm, 22 Oct 2025

China has positioned itself as a responsible major collaborative force in AI development and governance, contrasting with a recently released survey finding that most Americans view US leadership in the field as crucial.

Beijing arrived at its assessment this week as China hosted a workshop on AI capacity building, the third of its kind in two years. The week-long event in Shanghai attracted participants from more than 20 countries. Details of the discussions were not disclosed.

“Artificial intelligence is the culmination of human wisdom and should not be reduced to a game for the wealthy and affluent,” Sun Xiaobo, a senior Chinese diplomat, told the forum on Monday, taking a veiled swipe at Washington.

Foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun on Tuesday said the event showed China’s credibility and responsibility as a major country, noting the AI workshop would “jointly discuss and promote AI’s inclusive development and global governance”.

“Let the achievement of modernisation, including artificial intelligence technology, benefit people across the world,” Guo added. “It provides new opportunities for global development through China’s unique modernisation achievements.”

The event took place as AI emerges as a focal point in the Sino-US tech rivalry, with both countries vying for global leadership in AI technology and how it is governed.

For instance, the Chinese AI company DeepSeek has developed large language models using open-source technology at relatively low cost. The platform is widely regarded as China’s response to ChatGPT, a generative AI chatbot developed by the US-based OpenAI.

DeepSeek was launched in 2023, a year after ChatGPT’s public release, and quickly proved popular in the US. Chinese tech giants such as ByteDance and Alibaba decided to follow suit and develop their own open-source models for AI.

Alibaba is the owner of the South China Morning Post.

At the same time, China has accelerated its initiatives on global AI governance, presenting itself as a champion of sharing advanced technologies with the Global South and aligning with the United Nations on the issue, marking a clear contrast with the US.

Unlike Beijing, Washington has framed American leadership in AI as a matter of national security and aims to “counter Chinese influence in international governance bodies”.

Beijing’s initiatives include Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “Global AI Governance Initiative”, launched in 2023. It called for enhanced “information exchange and technological cooperation on the governance of AI”, according to the foreign ministry.

Beijing has already engaged in AI capacity-building cooperation with the likes of Zambia and members of the Brics bloc of emerging national economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.

Ma Zhaoxu, China’s foreign vice-minister, speaks at an AI meeting in New York on September 25. Photo: Xinhua

Last month, Ma Zhaoxu, China’s foreign vice-minister, said during a high-level meeting on AI at the United Nations General Assembly that Beijing supported “the expansion of representation and voice of developing countries in global AI governance”.

“The global AI governance should not become an exclusive club for wealthy nations,” Ma added at the gathering in New York.

In a jab at Washington, the senior Chinese diplomat said “the generalisation of national security to use AI technology as a tool for maintaining hegemony should be opposed”.

However, as China has tried to pitch itself as a responsible major power for collaborative development in AI, a survey published last week by the Rand Corporation, a US-based think tank, found that most people in America viewed US leadership as crucial.

In the survey, 37 per cent of respondents rated the importance of America maintaining AI dominance as a 10 – the highest possible value – with 72 per cent ranking it at least a six.

As for their concern about China’s emerging AI leadership, 38 per cent of the respondents considered the matter a 10 in importance, and 72 per cent scored it at six or higher.

The results follow the White House’s release in July of an AI action plan outlining the Donald Trump administration’s plan to realise the US president’s “vision of global AI dominance”.

According to the plan, the US would investigate Chinese-developed AI models for alignment with the country’s Communist Party narratives and censorship to “ensure that frontier AI protects free speech and American values”.

Meanwhile, the US Congress this year has already introduced bipartisan bills intended to block Chinese AI, including the “No Adversarial AI Act” proposed in June, and the “No DeepSeek on Government Devices Act” in February.

Zhao Ziwen

Ziwen joined the Post in 2022, covering China’s foreign affairs. He holds degrees from Beijing Foreign Studies University and Hong Kong Baptist University. He worked for Caixin in Beijing, completed a study exchange in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, and undertook a reporting stint

12. “Asymmetric Unconventional Warfare,” Also Known as Chinese Counterfeiting

I have never heard of UW described this way. But I think this falls under China's Unrestricted Warfare concept as implied in the excerpt here. Video at the link.

“I see [counterfeiting] in terms of asymmetric unconventional warfare,” said Camilla Bosanquet, Ph.D. candidate and doctoral research fellow at the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center at George Mason University. “It’s clear to me that the proliferation of counterfeit goods across the marketplace platforms can be understood in terms of financial, cyber, trade and legal warfare at a minimum,” Bosanquet pointed to a Chinese military strategy document that “articulates non-military approaches to weaken or defeat opponents,” and suggested that counterfeiting – which undermines consumer trust and undercuts original producers – fits such a strategy neatly.

That also jives with the ITIF report, authored by panel moderator Eli Clemens. It noted an estimate produced by the Buy Safe America Coalition, which found counterfeits caused roughly $54 billion in lost sales for domestic retailers, and that hundreds of thousand retail and wholesale jobs, “paying $13.6 billion in wages, were lost due to those counterfeit imports. [The coalition estimates] counterfeit goods cost the U.S. government $13.5 billion in lost tax revenue.”

“If you eradicate counterfeiting, you’re going to disrupt the local economy, and [China] has no interest in doing so.”

Daniel C.K. Chow

“Asymmetric Unconventional Warfare,” Also Known as Chinese Counterfeiting

https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/asymmetric-unconventional-warfare-also-known-as-chinese-counterfeiting/

By Maren Buma

Oct 22 2025

trade enforcement

Getty Images

A panel examines the perils of the knockoff economy, and what to do about it.

Counterfeit goods make up 3.3% of all global trade, according to Business Insider. In spite of the allure of deeply discounted prices made available to consumers on e-commerce giants like SHEIN or Temu, most Americans would agree that knocking off a product or stealing intellectual property is wrong.

But counterfeits pose a myriad of dangers to those who purchase them, unwittingly or not. Not only is counterfeiting a common front for other criminal enterprises, increasing crime rates in all countries involved, counterfeit products have been shown to carry cadmium and lead — toxic heavy metals — as well as biohazardous waste including rat droppings from unsafe production environments and even horse urine. Those facts alone should be enough to ward off consumers, and that’s before the larger financial dangers are even mentioned.

A panel discussion hosted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) last week explored this topic more deeply. The panelists largely agreed with the findings of a recently released ITIF report that examines how China’s e-commerce marketplace facilitate counterfeit sales.

“I see [counterfeiting] in terms of asymmetric unconventional warfare,” said Camilla Bosanquet, Ph.D. candidate and doctoral research fellow at the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center at George Mason University. “It’s clear to me that the proliferation of counterfeit goods across the marketplace platforms can be understood in terms of financial, cyber, trade and legal warfare at a minimum,” Bosanquet pointed to a Chinese military strategy document that “articulates non-military approaches to weaken or defeat opponents,” and suggested that counterfeiting – which undermines consumer trust and undercuts original producers – fits such a strategy neatly.

That also jives with the ITIF report, authored by panel moderator Eli Clemens. It noted an estimate produced by the Buy Safe America Coalition, which found counterfeits caused roughly $54 billion in lost sales for domestic retailers, and that hundreds of thousand retail and wholesale jobs, “paying $13.6 billion in wages, were lost due to those counterfeit imports. [The coalition estimates] counterfeit goods cost the U.S. government $13.5 billion in lost tax revenue.”

“If you eradicate counterfeiting, you’re going to disrupt the local economy, and [China] has no interest in doing so.”

Daniel C.K. Chow

Dan Chow, a professor of law at Ohio State University in the East Asian Studies Center, highlighted that many Chinese e-commerce websites do not require business authentication to sell on the site. The ITIF report, which attempted to understand the prevalence of counterfeit goods on these platforms via a series of test purchases, was only able to verify fake products once the original manufacturer deemed it counterfeit. Companies like Alibaba have paid verification options, meaning to prove a business license’s validity, companies must first pay up. It becomes cost efficient to not pay for either, and because these companies are so influential, the Chinese government doesn’t enforce their own law. This undermines legitimate manufacturers and encourages perpetuated unethical labor standards to stay hidden.

“The fact that there’s so much social and political acceptance of counterfeiting means that counterfeiting has been completely integrated into the legitimate local economy. If you eradicate counterfeiting, you’re going to disrupt the local economy, and [China] has no interest in doing so,” said Chow.

Recently, the U.S. has taken a step in the right direction by removing the de minimis loophole, which allowed shipments into the U.S. valued under $800 to be exempt from tariffs and customs inspections. Almost 37% “of all seized shipments in 2019 were [de minimis] shipments, showing how significant the de minimis exemption was to those importing counterfeits,” said Clemens in the report.

A complete eradication of counterfeit imports is a lofty goal for any single country alone. But, with current shifts in trade negotiations with China, all panelists proposed stipulations could be put in place to combat counterfeit goods from continuing to stream into the U.S. If both countries can align on cracking down on counterfeits, the markets will slow down.

Applications for stipulations could include enforcing rigorous business and manufacturer authentication laws on e-commerce websites, re-implementing government anti-counterfeiting and intellectual property enforcement, and utilizing private sector authentication companies such as Entrupy (represented by Jake Stewart on the panel) to aid in verifying companies and products before they enter the U.S. It was a fascinating conversation; you can watch the whole thing below:

13. AFP warns vs. China-linked disinformation aiming to divide ranks

AFP warns vs. China-linked disinformation aiming to divide ranks

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/963183/afp-warns-vs-china-linked-disinformation-aiming-to-divide-ranks/story/

By SHERYLIN UNTALAN, GMA Integrated News

Published October 21, 2025 4:48pm

Updated October 22, 2025 4:46pm

The Philippine Army joins the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the renewal of pledge of allegiance to the AFP Code of Conduct during the flag raising ceremony at the Army headquarters in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. Photo from Philippine Army

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) warned on Tuesday that disinformation networks, some linked to China, are spreading false narratives to erode public trust in the military and divide its ranks, including among retired personnel.

Rear Admiral Roy Vincent Trinidad, the Philippine Navy’s spokesperson for the West Philippine Sea, said the same “disinformation” and “malign influence” tactics previously used by the Chinese Communist Party to advance its illegal claims in the West Philippine Sea are now being deployed domestically to agitate members of the uniformed service.

“Recently, there was an attempt to agitate some of the members of our MUP [military and uniformed personnel] retirees to organize them and eventually mobilize them against the AFP,” Trinidad said.

He said the effort appears to be part of a coordinated attempt to discredit the institution and create internal unrest.

“Misinformation and disinformation is a top global risk at this point and we have to address this,” she said during a press briefing.

“So ang pinag-promote po natin dito is lateral thinking. Kung ano po yung pananaw natin, tingnan din po natin ang pananaw ng iba.”

(What we are promoting is lateral thinking. Whatever our views are, we should also consider the perspectives of others.)

Padilla said that social media algorithms now shape user perception by repeatedly feeding content aligned with individual biases, limiting balanced understanding.

“So may ayon kasi ngayon, pina-pattern niya na tayo na kung ano po yung meeting niyo na yung gusto niyong binabasa, yun po yung pinifeed niya sa atin,” she said.

(Nowadays, these platforms are patterned to feed us only what aligns with our interests.)

She also addressed recent online rumors falsely claiming that President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. planned to remove the AFP pension.

“The Armed Forces of the Philippines wants to make this very clear that there is no truth to the circulation of false and misleading claims that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. has threatened to remove the AFP pension,” Padilla said.

She warned that the rumor was part of “coordinated disinformation efforts” meant to “divide the ranks of our soldiers and retirees” and “weaken the institution from within.”

The warning comes amid a surge of false information targeting the military that has been observed on various social media platforms, including claims that the President had ordered the removal of military pensions.

Padilla urged the public, media, and military personnel to practice digital literacy and verify sources before sharing information online, stressing that the goal is to safeguard unity and national stability.

“Ang gusto lang naman po natin is mahinay po ang ating bayan towards development in general,” she said.

(What we want is for our nation to move forward calmly toward development.)

The AFP also said that it remains united and vigilant in countering foreign and domestic disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing the country and undermining trust in its institutions. —VAL/BM, GMA Integrated News

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/963183/afp-warns-vs-china-linked-disinformation-aiming-to-divide-ranks/story/

More stories: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/ Follow us: https://www.facebook.com/gmanews/

14. Takaichi to put defense push in spotlight in bid to satiate Trump demands

Takaichi to put defense push in spotlight in bid to satiate Trump demands

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/10/23/japan/politics/japan-pm-takaichi-defense-spending/?utm

Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force personnel march during the joint multinational exercise Garuda Shield 2025 at the Baturaja combat training center in Lampung, Indonesia, last month. | AFP-JIJI

By Jesse Johnson

STAFF WRITER

SHARE/SAVE

Oct 23, 2025

New Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is looking to bring forward a five-year defense spending hike to 2% of gross domestic product from fiscal 2027 to the end of this fiscal year, as Tokyo looks to spotlight its commitment shouldering more of the defense burden ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to Japan next week.

Takaichi is expected to lay out a broad vision for beefing up the country’s defense capabilities in a speech Friday that will announce a plan to bring spending up to the 2% level by using a soon-to-come supplementary budget for this fiscal year, local media has reported, quoting government sources.

Takaichi has said that her administration will revise the country’s three key security documents — its National Defense Strategy (NDS), Defense Buildup Program (DBP) and National Security Strategy (NSS) — the last of which sets out the current five-year, ¥43 trillion (roughly $282 billion) spending plan in late 2022. These revisions are expected to clear a path for even higher defense budgets amid what Takaichi said are “significant changes” in how conflicts are fought.

The decision to revise the documents is unusual in that the NSS and NDS are, in principle, revised on a 10-year basis, though this has rarely been the case. Updating the DBP, however, may be the biggest signal of a looming spending hike, since it is directly tied to the execution of the budget.

“If Japan is to fundamentally increase its defense budget, an accelerated revision of the buildup plan must accompany that change,” said Masashi Murano, a Japan defense expert at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington.

In a sign of the fleet-footed actions Takaichi’s administration has taken since her ascendence to the premiership, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Tuesday, just after Takaichi took office, that she had already ordered the documents’ review.

The prime minister herself has emphasized her view that time is of the essence — and she has found an amenable partner in the Japan Innovation Party (JIP), a hawkish-on-defense party, also known as Nippon Ishin no Kai, that joined hands with her Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last week to create a new ruling coalition.

“For Japan, there are still areas where our efforts are insufficient and must be significantly strengthened going forward,” Takaichi said during her inaugural news conference Tuesday. “I believe the situation is now urgent, requiring immediate action.”

James Schoff, a Japan expert at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA in Washington, said that with the sudden and dramatic changes in the global geopolitical environment, updating the security documents makes political sense, “especially in the context of a ... much more erratic U.S. foreign and security policy under Donald Trump that might be prioritizing national defense over regional security in Asia.”

Indeed, the Defense Ministry’s record budget request for the next fiscal year has signaled that Japan is increasingly focusing on the shifts Takaichi alluded to, with a significant chunk of the request aimed at securing drones and other advanced technologies.

But while the ministry said defense-related spending in fiscal 2025 was at 1.8% of GDP — near the 2% gold standard targeted by many Western nations — those figures may do little to satiate Trump.

The U.S. president has already won acquiescence from NATO nations to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense, while his administration has demanded that American allies, including Japan, target a “global standard” of 5%.

Still, Takaichi is expected to present her quick footwork as laying the groundwork for a hike in defense spending further down the road — a move that could placate Trump in the short term.

Takaichi has said that she hopes to first “deepen the trust” between herself and Trump “through frank exchanges” on issues the allies face, making clear that any move to boost Japan’s defense capabilities will be a sovereign decision, not one foisted upon her.

She also hopes to emphasize in her meeting with Trump the critical roles Tokyo can play in the alliance.

“The Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of our nation's diplomacy and security,” Takaichi said Tuesday. “I believe Japan is an indispensable partner for the United States, whether viewed from the perspective of the U.S. strategy toward China or its Indo-Pacific strategy."

She’s also expected to note the ruling bloc’s raft of ambitious defense policy goals.

Koizumi on Wednesday already highlighted the LDP-JIP agreement to cooperate on these targets, including their shared goal of seeing Japan acquire submarines powered by “next-generation” propulsion systems — phrasing widely seen as a euphemism for nuclear-powered vessels — and equipped with vertical launch systems for the standoff weapons.

The newly minted defense chief told reporters that while “no decision has been made” about the propulsion systems for submarines, “no options are being ruled out.”

Asked about policy cooperation with the JIP, he also stressed that the two parties’ agreement — which he said “carries significant weight” — would see them strive to scrap rules that effectively prohibit the transfer of lethal defense equipment. Such a move, they argue, would help promote measures that help strengthen the country’s moribund defense industrial base.

But as ambitious as these goals are, Takaichi’s plans may be brought back to reality sooner rather than later as she grapples with inflation, the yen’s diminishing value and uncertainty over how to secure funding.

15. In a war, the US Army could destroy China’s ports. Should it?

In a war, the US Army could destroy China’s ports. Should it?

armytimes.com · Michael Peck · October 21, 2025

If America goes to war with China, rocketry may be the U.S. Army’s most important contribution. A conflict across the vast Pacific would be waged primarily by air and sea forces, backed by small contingents of ground troops.

But while the Army may not storm Shanghai in a ground assault, it certainly has the ability to strike Chinese territory. The Army has an arsenal of long-range munitions in service or under development, including the shorter-range Precision Strike Missile, the Typhon Strategic Mid-Range Fires system and the Dark Eagle Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. These missiles can hit targets 1,000 to almost 3,000 kilometers away.

A likely target would be Chinese ports that would be key to supporting the Chinese fleet, staging an amphibious invasion of Taiwan and sustaining Chinese exports and imports.

But damaging Chinese ports or seizing Chinese economic facilities is a bad idea, warns an Army National Guard officer. In fact, “the Army should preserve Chinese maritime shipping infrastructure during conflict so that it is usable postwar,” wrote Capt. Micah Neidorfler in a recent essay for Military Review.

This sounds counterintuitive; compelling the enemy to capitulate by destroying his strategic infrastructure has been a plank of U.S. policy since the B-17 bombers of the 1930s. But despite U.S. efforts to decouple its economy from China’s, America still depends on China for everything from iPhones and rare earths to providing an export market for American farmers. Much of the global economy — especially manufacturing — relies on Chinese industry.

Yet, “U.S. joint doctrine specifically identifies ports as targets, and predictions for a U.S.-China war perceive Chinese ports as likely targets for U.S. strikes,” Neidorfler noted. “Therefore, in any U.S.-China conflict, Chinese maritime infrastructure will be exposed to the devastation of twenty-first-century warfare.”

If devastating China’s ports cripples the global or U.S. economy, any victory could prove pyrrhic. Since an unconditional Chinese surrender is unlikely, there will inevitably be a negotiated peace and a need to restore postwar trade, Neidorfler argued.

“Suggesting that the Army should preserve enemy strategic infrastructure might make many balk, but the reasoning is sound,” wrote Neidorfler. “U.S. domestic prosperity significantly depends upon international trade and the global economy, which in turn are deeply intertwined with China.”

But Neidorfler sees a way out of this dilemma. Ports are complex entities with numerous — and vulnerable — components for loading and unloading cargo, storing it and transporting goods to and from the site. Thus, ports are vulnerable to disruption at many points, including cranes, piers, rail yards and oil storage tanks. It is possible to hit specific targets that render a port temporarily inoperable, but without inflicting long-term damage.

“Applying this tactic to Chinese ports would fulfill a strategic aim of preventing or degrading their utility during wartime while remaining relatively easy to repair post-conflict, allowing China to return to maritime trade quickly,” argued Neidorfler. In addition, because “destroying subcomponents does not threaten ports’ long-term functionality, this dramatically reduces the escalatory nature of targeting them.”

All of this ties into the larger question of the Army’s role as a major player in a Pacific war.

Defense tank analyses of a possible U.S.-China war have ignored Army contributions or focused on the service’s niche capabilities, Neidorfler noted. But in reality, “over the last decade, the Army has focused on five main themes,” he wrote, including command and control for the joint force, sustaining the joint force and also protecting it via air defense, ground-based long-range fires and traditional maneuver forces.

Whether the U.S would actually attack Chinese ports is open to debate. Given that China has the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal and ICBMs that can reach the continental United States, the decision to fire missiles at Chinese cities may be more of a political than a military decision.

However, Neidorfler offers an alternative: using the Army to seize Chinese-owned ports in other nations, to use as bargaining chips or to prevent their use as military and intelligence bases. China’s investment in foreign ports is massive: 129 projects in which Chinese companies own equity or are involved in port operations, according to a 2024 estimate. He argues the majority of the Army’s force structure would be available for such a strategy, as a U.S.-China conflict would not require a vast number of maneuver units in the Pacific.

The Army would enjoy a variety of means to capture Chinese-owned overseas infrastructure that would be lightly defended at best, he argued. These include special operations forces, and for a more diplomatic approach, Army foreign area officers and National Guard bilateral affairs officers who could work with the host nations.

But even here, there are political complications, Neidorfler cautioned. Seizing Chinese property “raises sovereignty issues for the nations housing Chinese ports, and the United States could not pursue this unilaterally,” wrote Neidorfler. Since many countries — especially in the Global South — are unlikely to welcome American military intervention, “third-party states’ own militaries seizing assets would be more realistic.”

U.S. experts on China have misgivings on these ideas. Authorization to attack Chinese ports is not a given, Lonnie Henley, a researcher at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told Defense News.

“Who knows what some future president in some unspecified global circumstances would decide,” Henley said.

As for Army long-range missiles, “you need a place to stand to launch those weapons, and you have to get the forces there, and sustain them, and defend them from counterattack,” said Henley, a former Army lieutenant colonel with long experience as an intelligence expert on East Asia.

In addition, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy already have plenty of missiles.

“More weapons on target is always good, but how many more can the Army provide, compared to another dozen B-52 sorties?” Henley asked.

The U.S. and its allies could probably cut off most Chinese maritime trade.

“So what’s the added benefit of seizing ports in third countries?” Henley said. “None that I can see.”

Even Neidorfler admits that his ideas are “not an intuitive strategy,” as culturally, the Army is “focused on achieving decisive victory in the shortest time possible.”

Yet short of global nuclear war, a Sino-American war would inevitably end in some kind of peace agreement.

“If the U.S. Army is truly preparing for a conventional war, it must recognize that any settlement must be mutually acceptable for it to last,” Neidorfler concluded.

16. Pentagon announces a new right-wing press corps after mass walkout

I worry about our Public Affairs personnel trying to do their job of informing the American public. In the Pentagon it appears they will be speaking only to a narrow partisan echo chamber and their information may not reach the general public. These sources are known for publishing only that information which supports their agendas. Our Public Affairs personnel must be very frustrated with these decisions. This will be the subject of study in future PME classes.

Pentagon announces a new right-wing press corps after mass walkout

A new crop of conservative media and influencers — including the Gateway Pundit, the Post Millennial, Human Events and the National Pulse — signed an agreement with the Defense Department.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/22/pentagon-press-corps-right-wing-media/

Updated

October 22, 2025 at 4:33 p.m. EDTyesterday at 4:33 p.m. EDT

7 min

Summary

1,136

Several dozen people from various news organizations signed the Defense Department's more restrictive press policy. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

By Scott Nover and Drew Harwell

Nearly one week since a rash of Pentagon journalists turned in their press credentials after refusing to sign a new restrictive press policy, the Defense Department announced a “new media” press corps, largely hailing from right-wing outlets.

Get a curated selection of 10 of our best stories in your inbox every weekend.

The 60 people from various news organizations represent, “a broad spectrum of new media outlets and independent journalists,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote in a statement Wednesday on X, adding that all of the publications agreed to the agency’s press policy.

According to a draft of the announcement obtained by The Washington Post ahead of Parnell’s tweet, the coalition of signatories includes the cable network Real America’s Voice, streaming service Lindell TV (started by MyPillow CEO and Trump ally Mike Lindell), the websites the Gateway Pundit, the Post Millennial, Human Events, the National Pulse, and RedState. It also includes Turning Point USA’s media brand Frontlines, as well as influencer Tim Pool’s Timcast, and a Substack-based newsletter called Washington Reporter. The memo said that “many independent journalists” also signed, but did not specify who they were.

The Defense Department’s policy blocks journalists from soliciting information the department has not authorized for release — even unclassified details, a major shift in press outreach from the organization.AI Icon

Follow Trump’s second term

Parnell said that 26 people from 18 outlets signed the original document, including OAN, the Federalist, and the Epoch Times.

“New media outlets and independent journalists have created the formula to circumvent the lies of the mainstream media and get real news directly to the American people,” Parnell wrote on X. “Their reach and impact collectively are far more effective and balanced than the self-righteous media who chose to self-deport from the Pentagon.”

The Defense Department declined to offer additional comment or give the full list of signatories. Timcast, the National Pulse, and the Washington Reporter all confirmed to The Post that they had signed the policy. The Post Millennial, Just the News, Human Events, TPUSA Frontlines, Lindell TV, the Daily Signal and the Gateway Pundit all confirmed on X.

The introduction of a “new media” press corps follows a similar move earlier this year by the White House, which has held special briefings for influencers, upstart news outfits, and other nontraditional media. It has also had a new media seat in the briefing room, sometimes occupied by newer yet more mainstream outlets like Semafor and NOTUS.

Trump administration officials have defended their “new media” shift by suggesting they want to reach a broader and more diverse American audience, but many of the newest press corps entrants are small partisan outlets with low online engagement.

Only a few of the new entrants, including the Gateway Pundit and RedState, rank among the top 20 right-wing websites in the U.S., according to estimates from the online-data firm Similarweb cited by the political-content tracker TheRighting. The Gateway Pundit had 25 million visits in August to its website, while RedState had fewer than 10 million, the estimates said; the New York Times, by comparison, had nearly 600 million visits.

The Defense Department has made previous attempts to boost less-traditional media outlets, in February removing the New York Times and NPR from their dedicated office spaces in February in favor of the New York Post, Breitbart News, OAN and a left-wing outlet, HuffPost.

The resident Pentagon press corps, as it’s known, are the journalists — reporters, producers, photographers, videographers — who cover the Pentagon on a day-to-day basis. Of the Pentagon’s new press corps, only OAN was a regular presence before last week’s walkout.

Zelenskyy heads north for possible Swedish arms deal

Defense News · Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo · October 22, 2025

MILAN — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Sweden on Wednesday to discuss a “defense export,” according to the Swedish government, widely expected to be related to a potential deal involving Gripen fighter jets.

Zelenskyy met with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson on Oct. 22 in Linköping, home to the defense aerospace company Saab, which manufactures the aircraft.

“A strong and capable Ukraine is a key priority for Sweden, and we will continue to make sure it can fight back against Russia’s aggression,” Kristersson wrote on his X social media platform.

Stockholm has been touting the possibility of sending the Gripen to Ukraine for over a year. At the Singapore Air Show in February 2024, Saab officials confirmed to Defense News that Ukrainian pilots had successfully tested the jets in the fall of 2023.

At the time, the Swedish government emphasized that any decision regarding the transfer of the Gripen JAS39 was contingent on Ukraine’s accession to NATO. That has turned out to be a prickly question, in part delayed by Hungary, which did not ratify the protocol for the war-torn country’s accession.

“We are fully aligned with what has been put forward by the Swedish government on this matter — we also continue to work to support and work with our Hungarian partners in the best way we can,” Mikael Franzén, chief marketing officer at Saab, told Defense News on the sidelines of the 2024 airshow.

“We expect that if such a decision was granted approval by the Swedish government, it would be a fairly rapid process to send the aircraft to Ukraine. ... We are moving in the right direction currently,” he added.

Twenty months later, no deal has been finalized and Ukraine is still not a member of the military alliance.

In terms of Western-provided jets, Ukraine currently relies on the U.S.-made F-16s and the French Mirage 2000 aircraft.

In July 2024, then-Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Tobias Billström said Ukraine had postponed the Gripen option, at least until the F-16s were received and implemented into operations.

“Kyiv has concluded that simultaneously having both F16s and Gripens would be too much,” he said in an interview with Voice of America at the time. The country began flying the F-16s for operations the following month.

According to Jussi Halmetoja, a former Gripen pilot and air operations advisor for Saab, it takes on average between four to six months to train a pilot to use the Gripen JAS39 for limited operations, including air-to-air and beyond-visual range combat.

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a Europe correspondent for Defense News. She covers a wide range of topics related to military procurement and international security, and specializes in reporting on the aviation sector. She is based in Milan, Italy.

18. Analysis: Trump is trying to break China’s monopoly on rare earths, but can’t cut deals fast enough to catch up

Analysis: Trump is trying to break China’s monopoly on rare earths, but can’t cut deals fast enough to catch up | CNN Business

CNN · John Liu · October 21, 2025

President Donald Trump, right, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during a meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2025.

Evan Vucci/AP

See all topics

Link Copied!

As Beijing weaponizes its dominance over rare earths supplies, US President Donald Trump is cutting deals to try to break the stranglehold. But his claim that America will have an abundance of the critical minerals in just one year’s time may be a fantasy.

“In about a year from now, we’ll have so much critical mineral and rare earths, and you won’t know what to do with them,” Trump said Monday, after unveiling a $8.5 billion agreement to help Australia develop rare earths projects and secure United States access to those elements.

China controls more than 90% of the global output of refined rare earths, which are used to power everything from iPhones to electric vehicles, and this near-monopoly has become one of its most potent tools in its trade war with the US.

Rare earths emerged as a major sticking point between China and the US earlier this year after Beijing imposed unprecedented export controls on the critical minerals, which led to shortages worldwide, disrupting supply chains.

China’s move this month to tighten control of even trace amounts of China-processed rare earths in other countries sent shockwaves through global manufacturing and prompted Trump to threaten 100% tariffs on Chinese goods –– adding fresh uncertainty to the already tumultuous relationship between the world’s two largest economies.

Under Monday’s deal, the US and Australian governments intend to invest, in the next six months, more than $3 billion in critical minerals projects, expected to yield a value of $53 billion, the White House said. It is unclear when production from the new projects will begin.

As part of the agreement, the Pentagon will also invest in the construction of a 100 metric ton-per-year advanced gallium refinery in Western Australia. And the Export-Import Bank of the United States is issuing letters of interest for over $2.2 billion in financing for critical mineral projects.

The deal has the potential to put Australia in an even more awkward position with its largest trading partner, China. While trying to keep Beijing on side, Canberra has also been bolstering defense ties with Washington amid China’s growing influence in Asia-Pacific.

Although rare earths, a group of 17 elements, are in fact more abundant than gold, the relatively high cost and environmental damage associated with their processing and refinement have placed China in a dominant position in their production worldwide.

Between 2020 and 2023, the US was dependent on China for 70% of its imports of all rare earths compounds and metals, according to a report by US Geological Survey, an agency under the interior department.

And in a note Monday, Goldman Sachs estimated that disruption to just 10% of production in industries dependent on these elements could wipe out $150 billion in US economic output.

Workers transport soil containing rare earths elements for export at a port in Lianyungang, Jiangsu province, China, on October 31, 2010.

Reuters

The Trump administration has sought to diversify its supplies of rare earths, turning to allies like Australia and other resource-rich countries.

Australia holds the world’s fourth-largest deposits of rare earths, and it has ramped up production over the past half-decade. The country also mines about half of the world’s lithium, a mineral critical to the production of electric vehicle batteries.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has pitched itself as an alternative hub for critical materials, with its leaders last month signing memorandums of understanding with Trump to supply the US with rare earths and other minerals.

Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, said ahead of Trump’s meeting with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Monday that Australia’s role is instrumental in making the global economy “less risky, less exposed to the kind of rare earth extortion that we’re seeing from the Chinese.”

Australia topped the world as a destination for rare earths exploration, securing $64 million or about 45% of global investment in such projects last year, according to an analysis published Monday by US think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In May, the country’s Lynas Rare Earths firm also became the first company outside China to produce commercial quantities of dysprosium oxide, one of the most important heavy rare earths elements, the think tank said.

But experts are skeptical that Monday’s deal will deliver the much-needed quick turnaround in America’s supply of critical minerals.

“I don’t think that the rare earth supply issues can be solved in the short term, period. China is too far ahead of the world,” said John Mavrogenes, an economic geology professor at the Australian National University.

The Lynas Rare Earths processing plant in Kalgoorlie, Australia, pictured on August 6, 2024.

Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg/Getty Images

There has been little concrete progress in developing a rare earths supply chain in Australia, Mavrogenes added. Challenges like high energy costs, shortage of workers with necessary skills and the potential environmental impact pose significant hurdles, he said.

“I’d say we’re a decade away (from building up the required production capacity), even if we really got serious,” he said. “We’d have to make an industry from scratch. And that takes a lot of dedication and long-term planning, and a lot of effort.”

Prof. Rick Valenta, director of the University of Queensland’s Sustainable Minerals Institute, told CNN Affiliate ABC Radio that Australia has no shortage of skill in high-tech mining and processing. But he said it’s been difficult to build expertise in downstream production by relying on market forces alone and the injection of cash from the US-Australia deal will make all the difference.

“There’s a refinery being built in Western Australia now that’s targeting production of rare earths in 2027. We have a whole series of projects that are ready to go but (are) needing that last round of financing support to get them across the line and into production,” he said.

CNN’s Bryan Mena and Hilary Whiteman contributed to this report.

See all topics

Link Copied!

CNN · John Liu · October 21, 2025

19.Zelenskyy calls Trump’s proposal to freeze war at current frontlines ‘good compromise’

Zelenskyy calls Trump’s proposal to freeze war at current frontlines ‘good compromise’

US president’s remark seen as modest win for Ukrainian leader, who acknowledges Russia will not accept proposal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/zelenskyy-calls-trumps-proposal-to-freeze-war-at-current-frontlines-good-compromise?utm

The Guardian · Pjotr Sauer · October 22, 2025

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has voiced support for Donald Trump’s proposal for Ukraine and Russia to freeze the war at the current frontlines, calling it “a good compromise”, even as he acknowledged Moscow had made clear it would not accept the arrangement.

“I think that was a good compromise but I’m not sure that Putin will support it, and I said it to the president,” Zelenskyy said on a visit to Oslo, part of a tour of Scandinavia to seek additional military support.

The US president had earlier this week told reporters on Air Force One: “They can negotiate something later on down the line. But I said cut and stop at the battle line.” He was speaking shortly before a planned summit with Vladimir Putin was put on hold after Russia said its goal of seeking the whole of the eastern Donbas region, including areas held by Ukraine, had not changed.

Trump’s latest remarks were seen as a modest win for Zelenskyy. The US leader has repeatedly wavered on key aspects of the war, including whether a ceasefire should come before broader peace talks, and at times has appeared to consider Putin’s demands for Ukraine to give up more land.

Most recently, Trump had dashed Ukraine’s hope he would send Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv after a phone call with Putin.

Zelenskyy and his senior officials have previously acknowledged that Ukraine is unlikely to regain all of its occupied territory through military means, and they have privately told Washington and European partners they would be open to freezing the frontlines. Still, Zelenskyy’s public endorsement of such a plan marks a notable shift from his earlier stance, when Kyiv vowed to reclaim all land lost to Russia.

Russia, meanwhile, has made clear that its maximalist position has not changed, appearing to reject Trump’s fresh proposal to freeze battle lines.

Children among six killed in Kyiv after Russian missile and drone attack

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s longtime foreign minister, said on Tuesday: “Washington now starts to say that we must stop [the conflict] immediately, that we should no longer discuss anything, that we should stop and let history judge.”

Moscow has consistently rejected extended ceasefire proposals, arguing they would give Ukraine time to rearm and regroup at a time when Russian forces are making battlefield advances.

“You see, simply stopping would mean forgetting the root causes of this conflict,” Lavrov said. Those “root causes”, according to Moscow, refer to its sweeping demands that would undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty – including full control over the Donbas region, limits on Kyiv’s armed forces and a say in its domestic affairs.

Russia reportedly reiterated its previous terms for a peace deal with Ukraine in a private communique sent to Washington over the weekend, and again during Monday’s phone call between the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and his Russian counterpart, Lavrov.

The Kremlin’s maximalist stance has cast doubt over the prospects of a potential Trump-Putin summit in Budapest, an idea touted by the US leader last week after he called Putin.

Trump now appears wary of repeating the experience of the Alaska summit with Putin this year, which ended abruptly after the Russian leader refused to offer concessions.

Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said: “I don’t want to have a wasted meeting. I don’t want to waste time until I see what happens.” Still, he insisted both Putin and Zelenskyy wanted the war to end.

With uncertainty hanging over any renewed peace efforts, Moscow launched its largest aerial bombardment of Ukraine in two weeks, with waves of missiles and drones striking Kyiv and other cities.

Nationwide, Russian attacks killed at least six people, including a six-month-old baby, a 12-year-old girl and a woman, officials said. In Kharkiv, a drone strike hit a kindergarten, killing one man and injuring seven others.

Putin on Wednesday directed drills of the country’s strategic nuclear forces that featured practice missile launches. The chief of the army general staff, Gen Valery Gerasimov, reported to Putin via video link that the drills were intended to simulate “procedures for authorising the use of nuclear weapons”.

While the Kremlin insisted the exercises were “routine”, they came amid Moscow’s continued nuclear posturing. Russia earlier lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, aimed at signalling the Kremlin’s readiness to respond aggressively to perceived threats.

The Guardian · Pjotr Sauer · October 22, 2025

20. The Army yearns for the mines, reopens WWII-era critical mineral site

The Army yearns for the mines, reopens WWII-era critical mineral site

militarytimes.com · Zita Fletcher · October 22, 2025

A gold mine in Stibnite, Idaho, that once churned out critical minerals for the U.S. “Arsenal of Democracy” during World War II was resurrected last month by the U.S. Army and Perpetua Resources Inc.

The launch of the Stibnite Gold Project will see the private company partner with the U.S. Army’s Joint Program Executive Office Armaments and Ammunition, or JPEO A&A, to harvest not only gold but antimony sulfide from the mine, while working to rehabilitate the local environment.

“The Stibnite project currently holds the largest identified reserve of antimony in the U.S.,” Maj. Gen. John T. Reim, commanding officer of JPEO A&A and Picatinny Arsenal, said in a service release. “At an estimated 148 million lbs., it is one of the largest antimony reserves outside of foreign control.”

An Abandoned Arsenal

A key component of defense manufacturing, antimony is critical for the production of munitions of all types and is also used for fire protection and strengthening metal. Additionally, it can be used to create defense optics, night vision goggles, batteries and cables.

In the 1940s, the U.S. produced 90% of its own antimony supply — predominantly harvested from the mine in Stibnite, which held the largest source of antimony in the nation.

While Stibnite is historically known for its primary antimony ore, it is also a source of gold and tungsten. The area first came to the attention of gold prospectors in the 1800s, but the mine’s “golden age” came during World War II.

Fueled by antimony and tungsten from Stibnite, the U.S. wielded its manufacturing power as its own formidable weapon, unleashing masses of weapons systems and supplies for American troops and international allies.

The postwar era saw many mines shuttered, however, including at Stibnite, where facilities were dismantled in 1958. Following a brief attempt to revive mining in the area, the site became inactive as of 1997.

Officials cut the ribbon on the Stibnite Gold Project. (CNW Group/Perpetua Resources Corp.)

A Defense Crisis

In the years that followed, the U.S. ceased to produce antimony, with the last domestic source of it being Idaho’s Sunshine Mine that ceased extracting it in 2001.

The U.S. has relied exclusively on foreign suppliers for its antimony supply, creating a critical vulnerability in the national defense industry as China has developed a monopoly on the mineral. Other leading global suppliers of antimony include Russia and Tajikistan.

Estimated last year to possess at least 32% of world’s antimony supply, China dominates the global antimony market, not only as a source but as an importer and refiner of antimony from other nations — including from its Indo-Pacific rival Australia. China currently mines over 60% of the world’s rare minerals and processes over 80%, while U.S. mining resources have remained untapped and dormant.

The end result has been a chokehold on the U.S. military, with China using its monopoly to its advantage. Last August, China effectively squeezed U.S. defense manufacturers by imposing export restrictions on antimony.

By contrast, European Union nations, none of which mine antimony, were largely unaffected by China’s antimony restrictions as China is not their primary supplier — Turkey and Tajikistan are.

Over-reliance on Chinese imports of antimony prompted the Pentagon to announce a $43.4 million Defense Production Act award to Alaska Range Resources to harvest stibnite and refine it into antimony for military use.

“China and Russia control the market for antimony and all its derivatives, putting the United States at risk of interruptions that could jeopardize national security,” Jeffrey Frankston, acting deputy assistant secretary of war for Industrial Base Resilience, said in a Pentagon release.

“Establishing domestic sources for critical metals and minerals like antimony and its compounds enhances the long-term resilience of our supply chains,” he added.

On Oct. 20, President Donald Trump and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed an $8.5 billion agreement to cooperate on processing rare earths and critical minerals — ostensibly aimed at alleviating both countries’ national security risks that have arisen due to China’s monopoly on critical mineral access.

Restoring Stibnite

Over the first six years of operations, the Stibnite Gold Project is expected to supply up to 35% of U.S. antimony demand, according to a Perpetua Resources release, which noted that it will, at the same time, contribute to environmental restoration.

Miners in the 19th and 20th centuries left tailings — the waste by-product of mining — that have since clogged the Salmon River, an obstruction visible in photography from 1964.

A particularly critical blockage has occurred in the eastern branch of the river’s South Fork, which has prevented native salmon from traveling upstream during reproduction migrations.

Perpetua Resources says it is committed to restoring the river to benefit the salmon population and aims to clean up environmental damage left by previous generations of miners, who were lacking advantages of modern mining technology.

As the mine’s operation gets underway, Stibnite — now the only domestic source of antimony in the U.S. — is expected to once again become a vital backbone for U.S. defense manufacturing.

“This mine represents the nearest-term solution for a secure, reliable, domestic resource for military grade antimony sulfide,” Reim said. “And it is in keeping with the Army’s ongoing ‘Ground-to-Round’ assured munitions strategy to locate and engage with domestic sources for critical materials as we modernize and fortify the Arsenal of Democracy.”

About Zita Ballinger Fletcher

Zita Ballinger Fletcher previously served as editor of Military History Quarterly and Vietnam magazines and as the historian of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. She holds an M.A. with distinction in military history.

21. The AI Grand Bargain – What America Needs to Win the Innovation Race

Something else I heard at a presentation yesterday is that AI could be the biggest game changer since electricity. We cannot imagine what life was like before electricity. But now we cannot survive without electricity. Someday soon we may not be able to survive without effective use of AI. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But I do think that AI is going to be a major inflection point in history.

But I think this is the strategic competition we must absolutely win. We lose the AI competition and everything else could collapse: defense and national security, the economy, and our way of life. Hyperbole? Again, perhaps... but I do not want to find out what the loss looks like.

Excerpts:

Grand bargains often work better as tag lines than as policy, and getting the right kind of deal when it comes to AI is easier said than done. The technology, after all, is rapidly progressing along an unpredictable path. As AI improves, ever-larger amounts of infrastructure, power, and money will be required; the need for improved security from foreign intelligence threats will increase; and the urgency of collaboration with the defense apparatus will grow. So will the risks of misuse, prompting new policy tradeoffs. More startups will arrive on the scene, and legacy companies that today look unstoppable may fall by the wayside. Everyone involved in the AI world should prepare for constant renegotiation and rebalancing. U.S. officials, for their part, will almost certainly have to remain agile, experimenting with different AI policies as time goes on.

But amid this uncertainty, it is imperative that Washington take a more active role in enabling and shaping the American AI ecosystem. The technology does not need to develop as nuclear weapons did—under strict state control—but Washington cannot sit this one out. Instead, AI should perhaps evolve as the American railroads did in the 1800s. The private sector handled most planning and construction, but the government played a vital role, as well. It organized laws and permits for building the infrastructure. It passed carefully calibrated, common-sense government safety requirements—such as standardized track gauges, rules for the use of air brakes, and requirements for car coupling—which all helped make trains both faster and safer. The collaboration was not perfect, but it worked: American railroads became a national asset that increased the United States’ security and prosperity. Advanced AI, too, can promote U.S. power and interests, provided it is developed in the right way and under the right set of arrangements. Now, as before, it is time for the public and private sectors to stand shoulder to shoulder.

The AI Grand Bargain

Foreign Affairs · More by Ben Buchanan · October 21, 2025

What America Needs to Win the Innovation Race

November/December 2025 Published on October 21, 2025

Cinta Fosch

Subscribe to unlock this feature or Sign in.

Print Subscribe to unlock this feature or Sign in.

Save Sign in and save to read later

The United States’ lead in artificial intelligence might seem unassailable. U.S. companies—Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI—are out in front across almost all assessments of the technology’s general capabilities. American AI models are outperforming doctorate-level scientists on challenging questions in physics, chemistry, and biology. Just a few American AI and chip giants are worth more than the entire Chinese stock market, and investors from across the world are plowing ever more resources into the American AI ecosystem.

This breakneck progress is, in many ways, a testament to the strengths of the model of American AI development that has dominated for the last decade: letting the private sector operate on its own, with remarkably little direct government meddling or resourcing. This approach is quite different from those that ushered in past breakthrough technologies. Nuclear weapons and power, space travel, stealth systems, personal computing, and the Internet emerged either directly from U.S. government efforts or on the back of significant public funding. AI also has roots in government-funded science, including in personal computing and the Internet, and it benefits from ongoing government-supported research. But scaling up AI has been essentially a private-sector activity.

Yet there is reason to think the American way of developing AI is reaching its limits. Those limits will likely become increasingly evident in the coming months and years, and they will start to erode—and perhaps even end—U.S. dominance. Eventually, they will place the United States at a disadvantage against China, which has an alternative approach to the AI contest.

To avoid that outcome, Washington will need to embrace new ways of advancing AI development, ones that demand much tighter mutual support between the private sector and the state. Further progress now depends on resources and capabilities that only the government can provide or facilitate: the energy to power ever-larger data centers, a pipeline of international talent, and effective defenses against sophisticated foreign espionage efforts. The U.S. government, for its part, will need the cooperation of the private sector to integrate AI into the national security apparatus and to make sure the technology does not undermine democracy across the world.

The new American model of AI, in other words, must rest on a grand bargain between the tech industry and the government. The tech sector can help the state make sense of and deploy AI. The state can help the tech sector continue to grow in a way that advances everyone’s interests.

MAXING OUT

It is easy to see why Washington’s light-touch approach to AI has, by and large, paid dividends. Past revolutionary technologies, such as nuclear weapons and space flight, did not have immediate commercial applications. But the business case for modern AI is already highly compelling. AI firms have found huge user demand, resulting in skyrocketing revenues, and they have promised to automate myriad valuable tasks, such as coding. As a result, capital markets are funding AI projects at scales that would historically have required government resources. Moreover, the computation-centric nature of today’s AI means that it builds neatly on the cloud computing infrastructure that the private sector, not the government, has mastered.

The sufficiency of private-sector capital in enabling AI advances is wonderful for taxpayers, but the limits of this approach are becoming apparent. To see why, look at infrastructure. The vast fleets of computer chips needed to develop and use today’s AI require extraordinary amounts of energy, so U.S. companies will need more power to fuel the data centers they plan to build in the coming years. An analysis by Anthropic estimated that the United States will need to produce 50 gigawatts of new power just for AI by 2028—roughly equivalent to what the entire country of Argentina uses today. (One of us, Buchanan, advises AI and cybersecurity companies, including Anthropic.) By then, data centers could consume up to 12 percent of American electricity production. Without more electricity, the AI build-out will stall. Amazon’s CEO, Andy Jassy, for example, has labeled power the “single biggest constraint” to AI progress. And building this level of new infrastructure will require government help.

For too long, Washington did too little to add new power to its grid. From 2005 to 2020, the United States added close to zero net new power. After U.S. President Joe Biden took office, in 2021, and passed a law subsidizing the construction of clean energy infrastructure, the country added more than 100 gigawatts in new capacity. In the last days of his term, he signed an executive order specifically aimed at further expediting the AI and clean energy build-out. But although his successor, Donald Trump, has said the right things about building new energy infrastructure for AI, he has not delivered. He signed an executive order to accelerate federal permitting for data centers, but implementation remains nascent. Worse yet, his signature “One Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in July, and other executive actions gutted key parts of Biden’s energy expansion efforts, such as vital transmission projects. An area that could have been a bipartisan success fell prey to politics and has now become a major concern for business and AI competitiveness.

There is reason to think the American way of developing AI is reaching its limits.

Executed well, an AI-fueled energy boom would have benefits far beyond AI development itself. Leading AI companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure build-outs, creating employment opportunities. They have committed to carbon-free operations and demonstrated a willingness to pay higher prices for clean energy. These massive investments can accelerate the domestic development of better energy sources, many of which have bipartisan appeal, such as advanced geothermal power and next-generation nuclear facilities. Powerful AI models could also accelerate climate-related research.

If the United States does not construct more energy capacity, however, American AI firms will feel pressure to outsource the development of strategically critical facilities—likely to oil-rich regions such as the Gulf that run on dirtier fuel. For Washington, any prospect of offshoring AI should set off alarm bells. An American company shifting advanced AI training to a foreign country, especially an autocratic one, would pose huge risks as AI begins to power more of the U.S. economy and to play an integral role in defense. If a host country became unhappy with American behavior, it could punish Washington with the flick of a switch. A failure to build domestic energy capacity would thus echo outsourcing mistakes of past decades in other important industries, such as semiconductors, in which the United States is now dependent on foreign suppliers.

The United States has the technology and industrial capacity needed to build new energy facilities. But it remains inhibited by a thicket of government and utility regulations and by procedural delays—some backed by good reason, some not. These restrictions impose huge delays in interconnection (the process of connecting a new power source or data center to the grid) and require years-long environmental assessments. On top of federal and utility hurdles, state and local policies can be cumbersome, especially for projects that cross multiple states, such as transmission lines. Companies—not citizens—should pay for the energy build-out, but government policies must make it possible for them to undertake these projects on reasonable timelines.

Data storage tapes at a computing center in Berkeley, California, May 2025 Manuel Orbegozo / Reuters

Infrastructure is not the only domain in which American policies hold back the AI sector. AI progress depends as much on talented people as it does on technology and computing power, which is why the Biden administration acted aggressively to enable people of extraordinary technical ability to come to the United States from all over the world. This effort included elevating AI and other high-tech fields as priority areas for visas, as well as updating eligibility criteria to welcome top-tier scientists.

Here, too, Trump has sometimes said the right things but always fallen short in practice. During his 2024 presidential campaign, he declared that when foreign students graduate from U.S. colleges, they should “automatically” get a green card. Instead, under his leadership, the United States has begun shutting itself off to foreign workers and students, intimidating even those who have visas and are in the country legally. In September, the administration even said it would slap a $100,000 fee on applications for H1-B visas—the visas most commonly given to high-skilled immigrants. Such actions are already having adverse effects. For example, preliminary research by NAFSA, a nonprofit association of international educators, suggests that in 2025, American universities will suffer a 30 to 40 percent reduction in international enrollment.

If Washington cuts itself off from foreign-born scientists or sends them back home, the consequences will be catastrophic. The United States leads the AI race in large part because it attracts experts from across the world. According to a Georgetown University study that looked at AI research from 2010 to 2021, 70 percent of top U.S.-based AI researchers were born abroad. Sixty-five percent of leading U.S.-based AI companies, as ranked by Forbes, have at least one immigrant co-founder. Before the current Trump presidency, 70 percent of the students enrolled in American AI graduate degrees hailed from abroad. Historically, the vast majority of these students have stayed, often making critical contributions to American industry and academia. But thanks to Trump’s policies, many of today’s students might instead return home. Some could head to China, which has spotted an opportunity to recruit AI experts—and which poses the most significant challenge to the United States’ AI interests.

THE CHINA CHALLENGE

Protecting American AI leadership is not just a matter of pride. It is essential to U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. China has been making strides in AI development, and although none of its firms can yet match the best American ones, they do not lack for technical talent.

China faces one devastating disadvantage in this competition: its inability to make large quantities of advanced AI chips, a weakness exacerbated by U.S. export controls that began in the first Trump term and that Biden greatly expanded. But after heavy lobbying by industry, the second Trump administration has started dismantling this area of bipartisan consensus. In July, for example, it reversed its April decision to cut China off from newer AI chips, and the president indicated plans to undo other Biden-era controls, as well. Such moves will almost certainly accelerate Chinese AI development.

Beijing has acted decisively to ensure that, if it gains access to such chips, the rest of its AI ecosystem will supplant the United States’. Consider energy. Beijing has made extraordinary investments in power plants, energy storage, and energy transmission. As a result, China now produces more than twice as much electric power as the United States, and its lead is expanding. In some individual months, the country has installed over 90 gigawatts of new, clean energy capacity—almost double the amount of energy American AI firms will need in the next several years.

Beijing has also gained an edge by fusing its AI industry with its national security apparatus. The U.S. Department of Defense has said that major Chinese AI companies, such as Tencent, are key pillars of China’s military-civil fusion strategy. AI systems like these have broad utility to military and intelligence agencies: they can support weapons development, cyber-operations, and domestic surveillance, among other tasks. In exchange, the Chinese government has provided technology firms with extensive policy and security support. Historically, this assistance has included defense services and passing along industrial secrets stolen from American businesses.

Losing AI leadership to China would also cause tremendous global harm. Today, consumers across the world benefit from the rigor and transparency of U.S. regulations and standard setting, often developed in concert with other democracies, in many technological domains. For example, new technologies such as electric vehicle charging have required global collaboration on standards. AI will require similar partnerships, and it is in Washington’s interest to take the lead. Otherwise, there is a risk that autocracies will unilaterally set the standards. If Washington cannot establish more and better relations with its AI sector and secure its global AI leadership, the Chinese national security apparatus might shape global standards to adhere to Chinese censorship rules.

THIS FOR THAT

Right now, strong partnerships between AI firms and U.S. national security agencies are few and far between, and those that do exist are in the early stages. To address this deficiency, the government will need a better understanding of what AI is and how it functions. The government can help U.S. industries, but only in sectors it comprehends deeply, and today AI is not among them. In our time in government, we worked with some truly tech-savvy civil servants and military officers who drove bureaucratic change. The Biden administration hired hundreds of AI experts to bolster their ranks. But many have been fired or have left government in recent months, including many of its top technical staffers. Washington will have to do a better job of securing AI talent and reverse the trends that Trump has set in motion.

Industry leaders, meanwhile, must make sure U.S. officials understand their work—and they will have to be more responsive to Washington’s needs. AI leaders in Silicon Valley might be reluctant to cooperate more closely with the government, given its technical ignorance and bureaucratic sluggishness and given that they have enjoyed such success flying solo. But executives should remember that collaboration between industry and Washington often works out well for everyone. U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration teamed up with Ford Motor Company in the run-up to World War II to produce the B-24 Liberator heavy bomber, generating both revenue for Ford and much-needed aircraft for the military. The Manhattan Project would not have succeeded without DuPont, General Electric, Chrysler, and other corporate stalwarts, all of which profited by providing help. And the invention and refinement of radar, satellites, jet aviation, microprocessors, and the Internet all flowed from corporate-government teamwork.

One critical area in which the government can help companies is security assistance. Because AI is increasingly essential to national security, foreign intelligence services are redoubling their efforts to steal innovations from U.S. tech businesses. In March 2024, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted Linwei Ding, a Google software engineer, for allegedly passing Google’s AI chip designs to China. Beijing has also worked hard to smuggle in advanced American technology products, such as AI chips themselves.

Chinese spies will grab whatever AI secrets they can from American businesses. But they have good reason to focus on stealing model weights—the numbers that encode a trained AI model. Chinese companies can then avoid the training costs, as well as cut down on the time it takes to develop models. For example, AI companies work hard to discover algorithmic tricks that enable them to use their computing power more efficiently. For China, with its severe constraints on computational power, such multipliers are almost certainly incredibly valuable. These multipliers are likely far less well defended than the core secrets of past eras, such as during the atomic and space ages, simply because the government has been largely uninvolved in their development.

If Washington cuts itself off from foreign-born scientists, the consequences will be catastrophic.

AI companies bear the primary responsibility for defending their networks and organizations. But despite the recent loss in expertise, the U.S. government has cybersecurity capabilities that businesses cannot match, and it should provide significant assistance, as it does today to firms in the defense industrial base and critical infrastructure sectors. Such aid could include intelligence about foreign hacking attempts, support in vetting international talent, and guidance on security procedures. Companies that work directly with the U.S. government on national security should meet stringent standards, akin to those imposed on other defense contractors.

To meet their side of the grand bargain, AI businesses should help the United States incorporate their technologies into the national security apparatus. This lack of integration is a persistent area of weakness for Washington. American companies may lead the world in inventing AI, but without such cooperation, the country will fall behind in adapting AI for military purposes, which could prove devastating in a conflict. Time and again throughout military history, states that fail to integrate new technology into their armed forces have wound up suffering. France and the United Kingdom, for example, invented the tank during World War I but paid a heavy price when the Germans were the first to master its use, enabling their powerful blitzkrieg offensives of World War II. To guard against a similar outcome, the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies must procure and use frontier AI systems, and they will need hands-on guidance from private-sector technical experts to do so effectively.

Biden created an outline for how such cooperation might function in October 2024, when he signed a national security memorandum directing the government to bolster its use of AI for national security purposes. This document included strict guardrails to ensure that the technology does not enable human rights abuses, domestic surveillance, or other unethical activity—protections essential to earning the trust of private-sector AI developers and the general public. Unlike with many of Biden’s other executive actions, Trump has not yet repealed it. But the president has made little progress on its many important provisions and has ousted some of the senior nonpolitical experts vital to its implementation.

As government and industry develop a better national security partnership, they will need to pay particular attention to how AI can solve pressing problems in Washington’s competition with Beijing. There are, for example, many ways the United States could use AI in cyber-operations, as illustrated by the AI Cyber Challenge conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The country that more quickly and effectively integrates AI into the cyber-domain will likely prove better able to protect its own networks and penetrate others’, unlocking a huge intelligence advantage. AI could also improve Washington’s capabilities in other security domains, such as geospatial intelligence, signals intelligence, logistics, and weapons design. But nothing will happen without clear direction from government and meaningful engagement by American AI firms.

STRANGER DANGER

There is a final reason why the U.S. government and leading AI companies need to build closer ties: together, they will have to weigh tradeoffs between upsides and risks. Within the technology world, almost everyone agrees that although AI could offer tremendous benefits to humanity—curing diseases, advancing clean technology, eliminating grunt work—it could also cause massive harm. Some of these risks, such as the use of AI by authoritarian states to reshape the global order, can be avoided by preserving and expanding Washington’s lead over competitors. But other dangers are trickier to mitigate. Several top AI thinkers, for instance, believe it is plausible, or even likely, that a single malicious user could someday harness powerful AI to engineer a deadly novel pathogen. Others worry that even in benevolent hands, powerful algorithms might cause catastrophic accidents by taking actions that their creators do not intend. Then there are less fantastical but still dire outcomes, including massive unemployment, acute concentration of economic power, and discrimination in sectors such as health care because of biased models and training data.

From a policy perspective, any one of these scenarios would pose a challenge of historic proportions and force difficult tradeoffs. For example, in a hypothetical world in which a single AI user can cause catastrophic harm, the government will have to consider sweeping regulations on the development and use of sophisticated systems, even if that slows innovation. And if AI automates away a large share of human work, the government may have to spend large sums of money retraining the workforce, or it might have to facilitate a restructured economy. Given the pace of AI progress, policymakers will have to make these consequential decisions under exceptionally tight timelines—all concerning a technology that government is not inventing and about which it knows worryingly little.

At the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, July 2025 Go Nakamura / Reuters

Deeper collaboration between the public and private sectors, as well as with civil society, does not guarantee that the state will make the right calls. But it does give Washington a fighting chance of securing a net-positive outcome. With a stronger technical foundation, officials can better understand how reliably AI systems follow instructions, how they handle dangerous tasks, in which areas they can replace human labor, and to what extent they favor offense versus defense in security and safety domains.

The rise of the Center for AI Standards and Innovation at the Department of Commerce (founded as the AI Safety Institute under the Biden administration) represents a valuable initial step to build meaningful collaboration. Since its inception, CAISI has brought together government officials and companies to collaborate on safety issues. It has also aided in the development of standardized testing mechanisms for AI. CAISI has worked alongside other agencies with domain-specific expertise to carry out additional voluntary testing on particularly critical topics, such as partnering with the Department of Energy and the AI company Anthropic to assess whether frontier AI models have dangerous knowledge about nuclear weapons. CAISI featured prominently in Trump’s AI Action Plan, and the administration must empower it to carry out voluntary collaboration with companies, to set standards, and to conduct safety testing.

Thanks to CAISI’s work and the voluntary commitments that leading AI companies made to the Biden White House, AI firms have already promised to conduct independent safety testing of their models, often based on CAISI guidance. In some cases, companies have even agreed to grant CAISI access to new systems before they are released and have praised the government for the national security–specific expertise it has offered in return. Both sides should deepen this collaboration, spending more time and resources building high standards and conducting rigorous assessments of new models.

FROM THE GOVERNMENT, HERE TO HELP

Grand bargains often work better as tag lines than as policy, and getting the right kind of deal when it comes to AI is easier said than done. The technology, after all, is rapidly progressing along an unpredictable path. As AI improves, ever-larger amounts of infrastructure, power, and money will be required; the need for improved security from foreign intelligence threats will increase; and the urgency of collaboration with the defense apparatus will grow. So will the risks of misuse, prompting new policy tradeoffs. More startups will arrive on the scene, and legacy companies that today look unstoppable may fall by the wayside. Everyone involved in the AI world should prepare for constant renegotiation and rebalancing. U.S. officials, for their part, will almost certainly have to remain agile, experimenting with different AI policies as time goes on.

But amid this uncertainty, it is imperative that Washington take a more active role in enabling and shaping the American AI ecosystem. The technology does not need to develop as nuclear weapons did—under strict state control—but Washington cannot sit this one out. Instead, AI should perhaps evolve as the American railroads did in the 1800s. The private sector handled most planning and construction, but the government played a vital role, as well. It organized laws and permits for building the infrastructure. It passed carefully calibrated, common-sense government safety requirements—such as standardized track gauges, rules for the use of air brakes, and requirements for car coupling—which all helped make trains both faster and safer. The collaboration was not perfect, but it worked: American railroads became a national asset that increased the United States’ security and prosperity. Advanced AI, too, can promote U.S. power and interests, provided it is developed in the right way and under the right set of arrangements. Now, as before, it is time for the public and private sectors to stand shoulder to shoulder.

BEN BUCHANAN is the Dmitri Alperovitch Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. From 2021 to 2025, he served in a variety of roles in the White House, including as Special Adviser for Artificial Intelligence.

TANTUM COLLINS was Director for Technology and National Security on the National Security Council from 2023 to 2025.

More by Tantum Collins

Foreign Affairs · More by Ben Buchanan · October 21, 2025

22. Should the Army bring back the Pentomic Division?

Hmmm... When I saw the headline it made me chuckle. But then I thought ... Is now the time? Were we ahead of the time in the 1950s? It is hard to look back at a perceived failed concept and think it will work this time. Maybe the principles are more relevant to today's battlefield than the nuclear battlefield. But I would not throw out any ideas until they are assessed and tested.

Excerpts:

The original Pentomic divisions were a response to the “quantitative leap in firepower” from nuclear weapons, Moore told Defense News. With modern armies facing drones, long-range missiles and sensors, the new Pentomic “is posited on a similar response to firepower that in this case is in-depth, ubiquitous, pinpoint in accuracy and available day or night.”

“Massing a larger number of men and materiel takes time,” he said. “You will be spotted and attacked before you even reach the departure or jump-off point.”

...

Moore also sees the New Pentomic as a relatively inexpensive way that the U.S. — and NATO — can adapt to a changing battlefield.

“It can be done cheaply as it is about structure, training and an attitude of mind,” he told Defense News.

Yet history suggests that a Pentomic 2.0 would face many of the same challenges that doomed its predecessor. In the early years of World War II, the German blitzkrieg achieved remarkable victories, largely due to a doctrine that emphasized flexibility and expected commanders and soldiers to use their initiative. By 1944, heavy losses in experienced officers and NCOs led to increasingly rigid tactics. Similarly, in the early days of the 2022 Russian invasion, outnumbered but agile Ukrainian forces defeated clumsy Russian offensives. But heavy casualties have resulted in Ukrainian commanders reverting to the rigid Soviet-style tactics they were trained in before the war.

“Ultimately, any success will depend on a high level of initiative and a willingness to gamble on success,” Moore wrote. “This will have implications for training and leadership at every level.”

Should the Army bring back the Pentomic Division?

militarytimes.com · Michael Peck · October 22, 2025

In the late 1950s, when everyone expected World War III to go nuclear, the U.S. Army had to contemplate operating on a battlefield sprouting atomic fireballs.

This put Army planners in a dilemma. Military theory said that forces had to be concentrated to overwhelm the enemy and achieve decisive results. Common sense said that massing troops would only present a juicy target for nuclear weapons. The Army ultimately settled on the Pentomic Division, which consisted of self-contained battalions that would assemble for operations and then disperse. Yet the idea proved so unwieldy that the Army soon discarded it.

But 70 years later, the Army faces a similar dilemma. Instead of atomic bombs, the threat now comes from drones, as vividly demonstrated in the Ukraine war. To survive, Ukrainian and Russian forces have learned to operate in dispersed groups — sometimes as small as four to six soldiers — for fear of attracting the attention of a drone swarm. But lack of mass foregoes the possibility of decisive maneuver — and victory — and the conflict has degenerated into a grinding war of attrition.

A British expert has a solution: Resurrect the Pentomic concept.

“Something similar to the Pentomic structure may have something to teach in terms an answering the battlefield problems of today,” wrote John Moore, a former British Ministry of Defense official, in a recent essay for the U.S. Army’s Armor Magazine.

The original Pentomic divisions were a response to the “quantitative leap in firepower” from nuclear weapons, Moore told Defense News. With modern armies facing drones, long-range missiles and sensors, the new Pentomic “is posited on a similar response to firepower that in this case is in-depth, ubiquitous, pinpoint in accuracy and available day or night.”

“Massing a larger number of men and materiel takes time,” he said. “You will be spotted and attacked before you even reach the departure or jump-off point.”

The Pentomic concept, which governed U.S. Army infantry and airborne divisions from 1957 to 1963, replaced the triangular divisional structure of three regiments, with a five-sized organization. Pentomic divisions consisted of five battlegroups — equivalent to oversized battalions — with five rifle companies, a headquarters and support company and a mortar battery. But to create self-contained all-arms battlegroups, a plethora of support units were usually attached, including armor, artillery, engineers and air defense.

Given 1950s technology, command and logistics proved overwhelming.

“On the Pentomic battlefield, a CO could easily find himself with at least nine maneuver elements, well beyond the effective span of control for most colonels of the day,” recalled the late U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth in his memoir “About Face."

Moore envisions the New Pentomic — which he also calls “Pentomic v5″ — as a company-level approach.

“That formation size has enough combat power to achieve local success while having enough resilience to sustain combat for a useful length of time,” he wrote. Battlegroups would be composed of companies that would assemble as needed.

Dispersed, flexible companies would be less likely to be detected and attacked by drones, and could concentrate for attacks.

On the defense, “such a Pentomic structure has sufficient reserve potential to meet a range of attacks and will require increased effort by an attacker to neutralize a defense in depth and use that most precious of assets — time,” Moore wrote. “A dispersed Pentomic defense based on areas of concealment such as villages, towns, wooded and rough terrain can allow for gaps as these can be covered by precision fire at every level and improve unit survivability.”

Moore believes that technology has improved enough since the 1950s that command and control of dispersed maneuver units is feasible.

“Even the smallest unit has, through FPV [first-person-view] drone technology, the means of battlefield reconnaissance and precision strike,” he wrote. “While distributed command systems have great resilience and an ability to jump echelons in terms of targeting.”

Moore also sees the New Pentomic as a relatively inexpensive way that the U.S. — and NATO — can adapt to a changing battlefield.

“It can be done cheaply as it is about structure, training and an attitude of mind,” he told Defense News.

Yet history suggests that a Pentomic 2.0 would face many of the same challenges that doomed its predecessor. In the early years of World War II, the German blitzkrieg achieved remarkable victories, largely due to a doctrine that emphasized flexibility and expected commanders and soldiers to use their initiative. By 1944, heavy losses in experienced officers and NCOs led to increasingly rigid tactics. Similarly, in the early days of the 2022 Russian invasion, outnumbered but agile Ukrainian forces defeated clumsy Russian offensives. But heavy casualties have resulted in Ukrainian commanders reverting to the rigid Soviet-style tactics they were trained in before the war.

“Ultimately, any success will depend on a high level of initiative and a willingness to gamble on success,” Moore wrote. “This will have implications for training and leadership at every level.”

23. A Guide to Collaborating With (and Not Surrendering to) AI in the Military Classroom

Excerpts:

Perhaps the most prominent advocate for embracing AI is James Lacey of Marine Corps University. In his April 2025 article in War on the Rocks, “Peering into the Future of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Classroom,” Lacey argues that, rather than attempting to prevent students from adopting AI, institutions should fully embrace it as a tool capable of, in his words, “dramatically enhanc[ing] critical thinking by providing sophisticated data analysis, visualizing complex concepts, generating diverse perspectives, challenging assumptions, facilitating deeper engagement, and identifying biases.”

In advocating that professional military education institutions fully embrace AI, he cites examples where students used it to write papers, generate PowerPoint presentations, and, in one particularly impressive case, had the AI predict the questions he would pose on Marine Corps University’s oral comprehensive exams.

...

Conclusion

Lacey’s article is an important wake-up call to professional military education institutions, rousing them from complacency, and encouraging faculty to adapt to the modern world. As a fellow technology enthusiast, I am sympathetic to his call for educational reform. While Lacey tacitly acknowledges the need to adapt our pedagogical methods to include small group discussions, the critical flaw in Lacey’s War on the Rocks article is that he seemingly presents the use of AI as a binary choice. Either professional military education permissively embraces AI or maintain the status quo. There is a middle ground. Allowing students to write their papers with AI risks subverting the entire educational enterprise. By contrast, preserving traditional academic instruction — reading, practical exercises, class discussions, and exams — while supplementing the curriculum with AI-focused content allows students to master the fundamentals without becoming overly dependent on new technology.

Admittedly, this middle ground, in which faculty teach the fundamentals and supplement them with emerging technology, is nothing new. Instructors have been grappling with how to incorporate machines into the classroom since the introduction of the slide rule. Handheld calculators have been ubiquitous for more than forty years, yet elementary school children are still required to learn basic math before using calculators for more advanced mathematics. During my years teaching statistics and research methods at Pennsylvania State

University, I required students to calculate regression statistics such as slopes, intercepts, R², and t-scores using nothing more than a simple calculator and a sheet of equations. Performing the mechanics of regression calculations helped students understand the inner workings of the model and made them more effective when using statistical software such as SPSS. In any academic field, once students develop a level of mastery of the basics, they are prepared to engage with technology, using it to enhance their analysis rather than replace critical thinking.

Lacey’s “all-in” approach to artificial intelligence extends well beyond encouraging students to use the technology in the classroom. Arguing that “there is little in the world of academia that the AI cannot do,” he describes using large language models to design curricula, prepare instructional materials, conduct research, and even draft essays that lay the foundation for a forthcoming book. The appropriate use of AI outside the classroom is, in itself, a complex topic — worthy of a separate treatment. Here too, experienced faculty are better positioned to navigate the practical and ethical implications of this emerging technology, given our lifetime of experience as teachers, researchers, and citizens. While Lacey is right to urge professional military education to embrace artificial intelligence, it should do so in a way that preserves students’ intellectual development. Faculty simply cannot turn them loose on a technology and presume they will, as if by osmosis, develop the same reading, writing and critical thinking skills. If, in its desire to leverage the newest technology, the military promotes AI dependence, America’s future belongs to the machines.

A Guide to Collaborating With (and Not Surrendering to) AI in the Military Classroom

Matthew Woessner

October 23, 2025

warontherocks.com · October 23, 2025

If educators do not learn to embrace AI, they risk being left behind. Yet the question before professional military education institutions is not whether they should embrace this new technology, but how to do so in a way that prepares their students for the future. As educators examine the road ahead, they must find a way to incorporate AI into professional military education without undermining the intellectual development that is the cornerstone of their mission. I’m concerned that some academics, however well-meaning, are advocating a path that will not prepare students for the future and may leave the United States dangerously vulnerable to its adversaries. There must be a middle way.

Perhaps the most prominent advocate for embracing AI is James Lacey of Marine Corps University. In his April 2025 article in War on the Rocks, “Peering into the Future of Artificial Intelligence in the Military Classroom,” Lacey argues that, rather than attempting to prevent students from adopting AI, institutions should fully embrace it as a tool capable of, in his words, “dramatically enhanc[ing] critical thinking by providing sophisticated data analysis, visualizing complex concepts, generating diverse perspectives, challenging assumptions, facilitating deeper engagement, and identifying biases.”

In advocating that professional military education institutions fully embrace AI, he cites examples where students used it to write papers, generate PowerPoint presentations, and, in one particularly impressive case, had the AI predict the questions he would pose on Marine Corps University’s oral comprehensive exams.

As a fellow technophile who has embraced every electronic innovation since the Apple IIe, I applaud Lacey’s efforts to integrate AI into professional military education. The fact is, students are already adopting AI in the military classroom. Efforts to prevent students from using AI as an educational tool are not only unrealistic but could also leave graduates unprepared to succeed in a world dominated by this emerging technology.

While Lacey offers important insights into the potential value of AI, his article suffers from a major shortcoming: It seemingly casts the use of AI as a binary choice. Either faculty adopt a permissive approach to AI, or they impose draconian restrictions on its use. While he is correct in pointing out the dangers of banishing the technology from professional military education, he significantly understates the risks of encouraging its use without requiring students to master basic skills. The only reason Lacey and I can leverage AI is that we can combine decades of knowledge and experience as practitioners and academics with AI’s ability to process information. If today’s students are permitted to take intellectual shortcuts in their educational journey, they will not be prepared to partner with AI to solve difficult problems. Worse still, without fine-tuning their independent judgment, students could fall prey to AI systems deliberately sabotaged by America’s adversaries.

Between outright prohibition and blind permissiveness lies a middle ground in which professional military education teaches students to leverage new technology while also requiring them to demonstrate mastery of basic skills, reading, writing, research, and reasoning, without relying on AI. It is somewhat akin to requiring students to know how to do basic math before turning them loose to use calculators. Without independent experience to learn without AI, they will become hopelessly dependent on these systems, and subject to all of the baggage which that entails. To partner with a machine to solve difficult problems, students must be smart enough to know the AI’s limitations. For AI to be useful to future generations of leaders, students must still learn to reason for themselves.

BECOME A MEMBER

My Introduction to Artificial Intelligence

Like Lacey, much of my understanding of AI’s potential came through experimentation. While I’ve read many articles and watched scholarly discussions about this technology, there is no substitute for diving headlong into each innovation and seeing what it can do. In the two years since I began experimenting with a subset of AI known as large language models, what I discovered has been both marvelous and disturbing. Unlike every other technological revolution I’ve experienced — personal computers, email, the internet, mobile devices, cloud computing, video conferencing — AI has the potential to simultaneously supercharge intellectual inquiry for mature scholars and subvert the educational process for those still advancing through the academic ranks. To provide some background on how I arrived at this conclusion, I offer a brief history of my own introduction to the emerging technology.

I first became aware of the publicly available AI (in the form of large language models) in the summer of 2022 after attending a briefing by Chris Wheaton at the U.S. Army War College. Using an early version of ChatGPT, he demonstrated that, unlike a traditional search engine, users could pose novel questions and ask the AI how it reached its conclusions. Writing my first AI prompts, I asked it to summarize research controversies in my field, identify scholars studying ideology, and describe the missions of various non-profits. As I pushed the model further, I posed increasingly abstract, and occasionally absurd, questions to explore the limits of its analysis. Who would prevail in a military conflict between Liberia and Mexico? What would happen if Rembrandt painted using liquid nitrogen? How would the plot of 1984 change if the protagonist, Winston Smith, were replaced with Gumby?

By asking such unusual questions, I hoped to test whether the AI could move beyond regurgitating existing articles or blog posts and construct a truly original argument based on available facts. While there was no “right answer,” the large language models offered genuinely creative responses that were both plausible and, in some instances, genuinely insightful. I was surprised by the AI’s apparent capacity to “think” creatively. Yet, as I experimented with the systems, I became increasingly aware of their limitations — particularly in the hands of students who lack the knowledge and experience to approach AI with appropriate skepticism.

The Dangerous Illusion of Objectivity

To better understand how large language models “reason,” I spent many hours discussing controversial questions with ChatGPT. My purpose was not to win an argument, but to explore how a large language model weighs normative questions and on what basis it leads users toward a set of conclusions. In one such dialogue, I asked ChatGPT about the morality of dropping atomic bombs on Japan. As usual, it framed the question as “…highly complex and subjective” offering what appeared to be a value-neutral description of the competing arguments for and against the use of nuclear weapons. In the course of the discussion, ChatGPT stated that under the Geneva Convention, the United States was bound to protect civilians “regardless of the conduct of the opposing side.” It further argued, “The notion that one side’s violations negate the other’s obligations is a contentious interpretation; many legal scholars argue that humanitarian norms apply universally and unconditionally.” [Emphasis added.] To constrain the argument slightly, I asked ChatGPT:

Are you arguing that if one side completely negates the Geneva Convention and deliberately murders millions of civilians, that the other side is still obliged to abide by the limitations of the Convention?

Chat GPT responded:

Yes, I am arguing that even if one side completely negates the Geneva Convention and commits atrocities, the other side is still obliged to abide by the limitations of the Convention and principles of international humanitarian law. [Emphasis added]

This blanket claim, that the convention does not require reciprocity, was jarring. Article 2 requires new parties to the pact to accept and apply the provisions of the convention to enjoy its protections. Article 4 states “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.” By ChatGPT’s logic, a party that does not sign on to the convention does not enjoy any protection. A party that does sign the convention but immediately uses mustard gas, targets civilians, and tortures POWs can be assured that the provisions require its adversaries to meekly submit to the agreement’s limitations. Even though some legal scholars adhere to this position, ChatGPT did not represent it as an opinion. In stating “I am arguing” the claim that the convention is binding on a party notwithstanding their opponents conduct, it is asserting this point as a settled matter. This may seem like a subtle point, however this singular question of law has profound implications for the legal basis for dropping atomic bombs on Japan.

When it could no longer support its argument based on the text of the convention, ChatGPT claimed that the intent of the authors was to “…promote adherence to humanitarian standards universally, regardless of reciprocity” [emphasis added]. I was incredulous that a machine was ignoring textual evidence and lecturing me on the “spirit” of the convention.

Eventually, ChatGPT conceded the point that gross violations of the convention have legal consequences on the obligations of the parties. Having relented on this critical point, the AI was able to discuss the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan more intelligently. Getting the AI to this point required a lot of work, even for a seasoned academic. One can imagine the difficulty students will encounter when asking a seemingly straightforward question and receiving what appears to be a balanced, factually rooted, logical response. Students may fall prey to AI’s illusion of objectivity, as many lack the knowledge, insight, and confidence to recognize when a chatbot is leading them to a faulty conclusion.

I witnessed students’ initial vulnerability to falling under the spell of AI during my time at the Army War College. Whereas students readily questioned the views of their classmates, I noted a strange type of deference to AI’s perspective on controversial issues. Even though the AI rarely offered a definitive answer to difficult questions, the way it framed the debate would subtly steer students toward a particular conclusion. Precisely because AIs give off the illusion of authority and objectivity, students are more likely to surrender their judgment to a machine.

I tend to agree with Lacey’s assertion that there is no turning back. Students have access to this technology, and they will use it as part of their educational process. Where we may differ is in how professional military education institutions incorporate AI into the classroom. Whereas Lacey places great emphasis on teaching students to live with AI and get the most out of this emerging technology, professional military education must also teach students to live without it. Doing so will require carefully incorporating the technology into the curriculum in a manner that does not create dependence on a machine. By seeking this middle way, the military better prepares students to leverage AI rather than surrender to it. Bringing about this technological compromise will require professional military education institutions to abide by three principles.

Students Are Obligated to Understand the Inherent Fallibility of AI

Professional military education can minimize the potential harm of overreliance on AI by making students aware of its profound fallibility. AI systems are far from all-seeing oracles. To the extent that faculty can help students look upon AI with skepticism, it is less likely they will become overly reliant on machines to summarize the readings, write their papers, or engage in any high-level problem solving.

As a scholar who has spent much of my career studying ideological bias in higher education, I have come to appreciate how informed skepticism can immunize young people against surrendering their independent judgment to those in authority. While a vast majority of college professors lean left (the jury is still out on the political disposition of professional military education faculty), multiple studies of politics in the classroom show that students exhibit surprising ideological resilience. Although the reasons students do not adopt the political views of left-leaning faculty are complex, one factor is their ability to dismiss a source they perceive as lacking credibility. If students sense that a professor has an agenda, they may quickly disengage from the discussion. Similarly, students often dismiss faculty who speak on political controversies outside their area of expertise: A scholar of 18th-century French poetry, for instance, may not command much respect when opining on taxes or foreign policy. Drawing on research in student political development, there is reason to believe that the natural skepticism which protects students from adopting their professors’ views may not apply to AI.

Unlike faculty who sometimes politicize their instruction, when AI systems exhibit what might be described as intellectual prejudice, the bias is often subtle. Most AI systems weigh in on controversies by describing the state of the debate, the range of differing opinions, and, in some instances, the evidence supporting competing perspectives. When users ask an AI about the ethics of capital punishment, they typically do not receive a definitive answer. While this “balanced” approach is more informative than outright propaganda, it can still convey an illusion of objectivity — an illusion that is, in and of itself, potentially dangerous. Complicating matters further, students tend to view AI systems as experts in everything. In many respects, that perception is not far off the mark: Today’s AI systems can move seamlessly between moral philosophy, history, physics, and 18th-century French poetry. Given this “balanced” approach and broad access to information, students querying AI about a military-related topic may not pause to consider whether the recommendation is biased or outside the AI’s core competency. As a result, they may lack the vital skepticism that makes them resistant to the bias that permeates much of higher education.

One way to address students’ growing dependence on AI is to set aside time in the curriculum to study its weaknesses. Faculty can highlight how AI reasons, how this differs from human cognition, and provide examples of the technology going off the rails — such as the attorney who submitted an AI-generated legal brief filled with non-existent citations. This strategy alone is not sufficient to prevent students from relying on AI to summarize voluminous readings or write papers. To foster the reflexive skepticism required for effective human-machine collaboration, potential flaws in machine reasoning should be front and center in every classroom discussion involving AI. When, during a classroom debate, students use AI to examine a public controversy, the instructor must immediately encourage them to dissect the argument as they would with any person who entered the classroom. Did the AI omit any critical facts or context? Was the summary fair to both sides? Was the analysis based on unstated normative assumptions? Do other AI systems describe the controversy differently — and if so, why? With enough practice, students will routinely scrutinize AI output. Equally important, we can shatter any illusions that these systems are always efficient, reliable, and unbiased. Recognizing that students will increasingly turn to AI to gather facts, weigh alternatives, and formulate recommendations, faculty should make a point to praise students when they identify flaws or inconsistencies in an AI’s analysis. Getting students to reflexively treat AI systems with skepticism will help them incorporate its input without treating it as the Oracle of Silicon Valley.

Students Should be Aware of the Programmer’s Invisible Hand

Professional military education students are obligated to understand that, except in narrow areas of mathematics or the hard sciences, most meaningful questions have a subjective dimension or involve value judgments for which AI cannot serve as a meaningful authority. When designing AI systems, programmers must, of necessity, set parameters that promote social goods or, at the very least, minimize harm. Yet what constitutes a social good or harm is, itself, highly subjective. Nonetheless, there is broad social consensus that AI should help students struggling with chemistry homework, but should not provide step-by-step instructions for making methamphetamine. Offering advice on weight loss and nutrition is a social good, but creating a 14 day diet plan to lose 50 pounds is not.

The invisible hand of the programmer is most evident during intellectual discussions in which an AI shifts from a balanced approach to outright advocacy. Ask an AI to explore the U.S. moral justification for dropping atomic weapons on Japan, and it will typically present competing ethical frameworks to help the reader draw their own conclusions. Ask the same AI to apply this logic to Russia using atomic weapons on Ukraine, and it quickly shifts into advocacy mode, stating unequivocally that even tactical nuclear weapons would be morally reprehensible. For the record, I agree with ChatGPT on this point — the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be morally indefensible. Nonetheless, the decision to shift from intellectual exploration to advocacy does not occur spontaneously. It is the result of deliberate rules of engagement created by programmers. This has the effect of limiting, or at least steering, intellectual discourse. While one could argue that this “thumb on the scale” approach serves a legitimate outcome in the case of Russia and Ukraine, the invisible hand of the programmer, whether guided by foreign adversaries or tech companies, can also be used for nefarious purposes. Students must be made aware of this influence if they are to exercise independent judgment. Faculty can address the potential impact of programming on AI systems, but doing so in the abstract is insufficient. To truly understand how rules shape outcomes, students must see how different AI systems reason through problems differently, depending on the invisible hand of the programmer.

One of the more compelling demonstrations of how rules governing subjective questions affect decision-making can be found by confronting different AI systems with “trolley problems.” First introduced by Philippa Foot and popularized by Judith Thomson, the thought experiment presents an ethical dilemma in which a respondent observes a trolley speeding toward Group A and can pull a lever to divert the threat, subsequently killing Group B. Does one divert a trolley, sacrificing three elderly adults to save one infant? How does one choose between the life of five lobsters and one cat? Should someone sacrifice a stray dog to save Michelangelo’s David? By their nature, trolley problems don’t have a “right” answer. They do reveal something about the decision-maker. Turning students loose on an AI to explore how it resolves and justifies ethical questions helps students think about the invisible hand of the programmer. What are its rules? Do they make sense? How do these rules subtly influence subjective questions, leading the user to prefer one outcome over another?

Whether through trolley problems or other ethical tests, students must come to understand that consequential decisions on subjective matters are governed by rules. These rules are not written into the fabric of the universe but are created by programmers who bring their own ethical views, perspectives, and biases to the task. The way in which programmers resolve ethical questions can have important implications for how humans sort out difficult policy questions, such as preventing school shootings, responding to climate change, or deciding whether Israel should continue its war against Hamas.

As an aside, when using ChatGPT to proofread this paper, the AI halted the edit of the preceding paragraph stating “Sorry, it looks like I can’t respond to this. Let’s try a different topic.” When I asked “Why?” it responded:

I flagged that passage because it included a sensitive geopolitical topic—specifically, a reference to military conflict involving Israel and Hamas. I’m here to help with academic writing and ethical analysis, but I avoid commenting on or editing content that touches on real-world conflicts in ways that could be interpreted as taking a stance.

Note that I was not taking a position on the conflict in Gaza, let alone advocating violence. I was asking the AI to identify grammatical errors and improve the paper’s readability. Based on a programming decision, merely editing a passage that referenced Israel’s ongoing conflict with a terrorist organization was deemed beyond the pale. Indeed, when I asked it to proofread the sentence by shifting the conflict to World War II, it recommended an edit in which the reference to the conflict was omitted altogether. Without prompting, it shifted from editing grammar to altering the substance of my argument, stating that I should omit the final clause “to maintain neutrality and avoid sensitive content.” Behold the hidden hand of the programmer at work.

When designing curricula that incorporates AI, professional military education institutions must ensure that students understand most questions contain a subjective element. To serve a perceived public interest, an AI’s output is often subtly and at times overtly shaped by its programmer. This unseen influence can significantly affect how AIs approach problem-solving, perhaps even advising they drop the inquiry altogether.

Students Need to Know how to Operate without the Aid of AI

Even as professional military education institutions incorporate the use of AI into their curricula, they must create rational incentives for students to master programmatic material without the aid of a machine. This does not mean that colleges should ban the use of AI. Learning to use this technology will be essential to future success. Instead, this principle involves creating academic checkpoints where faculty evaluate students’ abilities without the aid of computer-assisted reading, writing, and analysis. If students know they will be evaluated without the support of AI at various points during the term, they will be more likely to engage with the material, even if only to complete their degree.

Creating meaningful disincentives for academic shortcuts is nothing new in higher education. One of my first peer-reviewed articles explored how normative academic policies toward misconduct potentially incentivized academic shortcuts. Twenty years ago, motivating students to do honest work involved setting high penalties for those considering copying a paper from the internet. With technology that allows students to bypass readings, outsource analysis, and even have AI write their papers (to include occasional typos), higher education is well beyond calibrating penalties in the hope of discouraging overreliance on AI. The most straightforward way to incentivize independent learning is to create a series of assessments in which students have no access to technology. Can students demonstrate that they have learned the required terminology, understand the course material, and apply theory without consulting ChatGPT?

Academia offers a low-tech solution to this high-tech problem through oral comprehensive exams. Indeed, for generations graduate students have undergone the medieval ordeal of sitting before a board of professors and answering questions to demonstrate their mastery of the material. Having participated in oral exams at the Army War College, I can attest to their capacity to motivate students to complete the readings, consider key concepts, and integrate course material across the curriculum. Although this was not the original intention of the institution, oral exams have become a reliable safeguard against graduating students who relied on AI to complete individual courses. Although oral exams have a high pass rate, I have seen students fail. The practice serves as a genuine quality check that motivates students to learn and ensures graduates meet a minimum standard.

In the age of AI, oral comprehensive exams represent only part of the solution. Spot-checking overall performance at the end of the year does not provide students with adequate feedback or incremental incentives to stay engaged with the course material throughout the academic program. Ideally, professional military education institutions should establish a series of AI-free checkpoints where faculty can evaluate students, monitor their progress, and verify they are prepared to move forward. As with oral comprehensive exams, these incremental checks may appear old-fashioned and include multiple-choice questions, blue book exams, and class discussions. Any evaluation method that prevents students from accessing AI will create an incentive to avoid overreliance on technology. These AI-free assessment tools do not preclude the use of assignments specifically designed to engage with emerging technology. They help create a body of knowledge and a set of skills that students must develop to use this technology effectively.

Conclusion

Lacey’s article is an important wake-up call to professional military education institutions, rousing them from complacency, and encouraging faculty to adapt to the modern world. As a fellow technology enthusiast, I am sympathetic to his call for educational reform. While Lacey tacitly acknowledges the need to adapt our pedagogical methods to include small group discussions, the critical flaw in Lacey’s War on the Rocks article is that he seemingly presents the use of AI as a binary choice. Either professional military education permissively embraces AI or maintain the status quo. There is a middle ground. Allowing students to write their papers with AI risks subverting the entire educational enterprise. By contrast, preserving traditional academic instruction — reading, practical exercises, class discussions, and exams — while supplementing the curriculum with AI-focused content allows students to master the fundamentals without becoming overly dependent on new technology.

Admittedly, this middle ground, in which faculty teach the fundamentals and supplement them with emerging technology, is nothing new. Instructors have been grappling with how to incorporate machines into the classroom since the introduction of the slide rule. Handheld calculators have been ubiquitous for more than forty years, yet elementary school children are still required to learn basic math before using calculators for more advanced mathematics. During my years teaching statistics and research methods at Pennsylvania State

University, I required students to calculate regression statistics such as slopes, intercepts, R², and t-scores using nothing more than a simple calculator and a sheet of equations. Performing the mechanics of regression calculations helped students understand the inner workings of the model and made them more effective when using statistical software such as SPSS. In any academic field, once students develop a level of mastery of the basics, they are prepared to engage with technology, using it to enhance their analysis rather than replace critical thinking.

Lacey’s “all-in” approach to artificial intelligence extends well beyond encouraging students to use the technology in the classroom. Arguing that “there is little in the world of academia that the AI cannot do,” he describes using large language models to design curricula, prepare instructional materials, conduct research, and even draft essays that lay the foundation for a forthcoming book. The appropriate use of AI outside the classroom is, in itself, a complex topic — worthy of a separate treatment. Here too, experienced faculty are better positioned to navigate the practical and ethical implications of this emerging technology, given our lifetime of experience as teachers, researchers, and citizens. While Lacey is right to urge professional military education to embrace artificial intelligence, it should do so in a way that preserves students’ intellectual development. Faculty simply cannot turn them loose on a technology and presume they will, as if by osmosis, develop the same reading, writing and critical thinking skills. If, in its desire to leverage the newest technology, the military promotes AI dependence, America’s future belongs to the machines.

BECOME A MEMBER

Matthew Woessner, Ph.D., is the dean of faculty and academic programs at the College of International Security Affairs at the National Defense University. He previously served on the faculty at the Army War College and Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Defense University or the U.S. government.

Image: Midjourney

warontherocks.com · October 23, 2025

24. How Food Feeds Strategic Competition

How Food Feeds Strategic Competition

Rosella Cappella Zielinski and Justin Gilpin

October 22, 2025

https://warontherocks.com/2025/10/how-food-feeds-strategic-competition/

In 2022, Rosella Cappella Zielinski and Justin Gilpin wrote, “Breadbasket Diplomacy: Preserving Wheat as a Tool of American Statecraft,” where they argued that American investment in food production and export, namely wheat, should be a pillar of national security strategy. Three years later, we asked them to revisit their arguments.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

In your 2022 article, “Breadbasket Diplomacy: Preserving Wheat as a Tool of American Statecraft,” you argue that the United States should “incorporate grain in its national security policy and re-sow the seeds of wheat diplomacy.” Three years later, what role do you think wheat should play in America’s national security and foreign policy strategy?

The importance of breadbasket diplomacy is even more central today. Adversaries of the United States are more active in using food as leverage, global food challenges continue, and global trade and tensions are heightened.

To secure American wheat export market access and ensure a free global market in wheat more broadly, the United States needs to embrace wheat as a pillar of national security. In good news, there has been movement on that front. In July 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture announced the National Farm Security Action Plan, recognizing that “farm security is national security.”

This is a productive start, but implementation is in its infant stages. We need to continue to push for a coherent strategy — one that treats wheat as a strategic asset and integrates that notion into trade, infrastructure, foreign assistance, and domestic agriculture policy.

Russia, China, and now India, surpass the United States in wheat exports, production, and stockpiles. In 2025, how are these countries exploiting the U.S. decline in wheat and using food more broadly to expand their influence?

Russia and China are creating institutions to displace Western wheat, shore up their partnership, insulate their economies, and create dependencies (notably by sub-Saharan and east African countries) on their wheat markets to politically exploit.

Three events are particularly notable. First, Russia proposed a grain trading initiative that was accepted at the BRICS summit in Kazan in 2024. BRICS members agreed to establish a grain trading platform within BRICS — the BRICS Grain Exchange — with the intent to decouple from Western trading platforms. This initiative places wheat at the center of a broader strategy to build alternative financial systems with an end goal of de-dollarization. This initiative would also allow Russia to avoid the effects of Western sanctions.

Second, Russia consolidated control over their grain exports, effectively nationalizing them. Such control allows Russia to effectively manipulate grain trade: offering discounts and favorable terms to those who earn it, and unofficial trade restrictions and minimal sale price for the countries deemed unfriendly. Petr Khodykin, formally head of Rodnie Polya, a Russian grain trading house that came under state control, stated Russian grain exports could become “a new oil,” compensating the Russian budget for the unstable revenue from hydrocarbon exports.

Third, China currently holds 50 percent of the world’s wheat stocks securing them a dominant market position that can be exploited for market control, trade policy tit-for-tat, and geopolitical leverage.

India, for its part, largely focused on shoring up domestic needs with tools like minimum support price to secure production, control inflation, and minimize imports. With a growing populace, wheat policy for India grows with equal importance.

You wrote in your article about the role wheat has played in the Russo-Ukrainian War, underscoring just how important it is to a wheat-producing nation’s well-being. In what other current or future conflicts do you see food being weaponized or leveraged as a tool of war?

Food weaponization during conflict and starvation because of conflict is not going away anytime soon. Global geopolitics and food as a tool of war continue to be at the forefront of global crises For example, disruption of shipping lanes in the Middle East and access to ports in Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia have led to several disruptions to wheat exports.

As U.S. humanitarian assistance programs go through a transition, it is important to strengthen the vital role that Food for Progress and Food for Peace programs can achieve as part of foreign policy using U.S. grown wheat: impacting emergency needs, feeding displaced populations, and promoting goodwill from the American heartland.

Potential good news is on the horizon as there are efforts underway to legislatively move the Food For Peace program to the Department of Agriculture. If these efforts are successful, in kind food aid transfers will be characterized by a direct link between American farmers and the populations they hope to assist.

Finally, with the benefit of hindsight, what would you change about your original argument?

When we were writing the piece, we debated on how much to address Chinese involvement in global grain. We are remiss we left that out as current events illuminate newfound vulnerabilities vis-à-vis China.

In 2021, Chinese leader Xi Jinping declared food security was an important foundation for national security. At the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi emphasized food security, stressing the need for China to hold its “rice bowls firmly in its own hands.” While there are many effects of this policy, two stand out.

First, the Chinese are leveraging their soybean purchases against the United States in tariff negotiations. In 2024, soybeans were the single largest American export to China in terms of value: $12.6 billion. In retaliation to Trump administration tariffs, China has not bought any American soybeans since May 2025. It is crucial for grain growers in the United States to expand the diversity of the market. The United States must have the export capacity to be a global supplier.

Second, China has been a negative participant in the future wheat market. In 2024, it cancelled 504,000 tons of U.S wheat shipments — the most in Department of Agriculture data going back to 1999. Its outsized presence in the market allows them to short the futures wheat market on a whim and, as they are purchasing via a state-owned enterprise, there is no transparency.

It is more crucial than ever to ensure American competitiveness in global wheat markets. In our original piece, we stressed the need for better rail infrastructure and adoption of technologies to advance wheat production efficiency. It is now more important than ever to improve freight speed and efficacy (including securitizing the current Class 1 proposed rail merger that is before the Surface Transportation Board) and fully embrace genetically modified traits to address drought tolerance for wheat.

As the importance of agriculture in trade policy, food security, and national security are being elevated, the United States must embrace breadbasket diplomacy to ensure it has the capabilities to stand tall in a world with actors like Russia and China who are trying to counter it.

***

Rosella Cappella Zielinski is an associate professor of political science and international relations at Boston University. She is most recently the author of Wheat at War: Allied Economic Cooperation in the Great War.

Justin Gilpin has led the Kansas Wheat Commission since 2009. He oversees operations at the Kansas Wheat Innovation Center, one of the nation’s premier public-private wheat research facilities, and chairs Heartland Plant Innovations.

Image: Smithsonian American Art Museum via Wikimedia Commons

25. The Biggest Threat to the Gaza Deal

Excerpts:

After two years of war characterized by gratuitous violence, famine, and systematic aid obstruction, Gaza finally may finally get a chance to breathe. A massive surge of lifesaving humanitarian aid is both a moral obligation and—given the structure of the peace deal—a strategic imperative. If the deal’s guarantors are unable to ensure aid delivery, it could lead to the collapse of the ceasefire itself. And even if the deal survives, a failure to make good on the humanitarian aims will drive yet more Palestinians into famine and worsen the already gruesome human toll.

These worst-case outcomes can be avoided. But to capitalize on the breathing room created by the deal, the guarantors will have to shield aid operations from the political manipulation that has plagued them since the war’s outset. Oversight and accountability will be crucial and will best be served if the United States and its regional and European partners establish a credible and robust coordination and oversight mechanism to uphold the deal’s humanitarian provisions. Above all, they most allow the UN and the many humanitarian organizations, which have years of experience in Gaza and the resources and tools needed, to finally do their jobs. By putting aid at the center of its deal, the Trump administration has rekindled hope that the crisis can finally be turned around. But that can only occur if humanitarian professionals are given the unfettered access, safety, and support they need.

The Biggest Threat to the Gaza Deal

Foreign Affairs · More by Jeremy Konyndyk · October 23, 2025

Only UN Infrastructure—and American Leverage—Can Prevent a Humanitarian Collapse

Jeremy Konyndyk

October 23, 2025

Palestinians carrying aid supplies in Gaza, October 2025 Mahmoud Issa / Reuters

JEREMY KONYNDYK is President of Refugees International and former head of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Print Subscribe to unlock this feature or Sign in.

Save Sign in and save to read later

Among the many aims of the October 8 ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, flooding Gaza with humanitarian assistance ought to be one of the most achievable. According to U.S. President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, “full aid” would be “immediately sent into the Gaza Strip” through neutral international institutions “without interference from the two parties.” The very first phase of the agreement called for 600 aid trucks per day to enter the territory unimpeded; in contrast to disarming Hamas or determining Gaza’s long-term security and governance arrangements, implementing such a measure is theoretically straightforward. On paper, after two years of horrific deprivation, serial displacement, and growing famine, it would finally allow the people of Gaza to begin to receiving adequate supplies of food, medicine, and other vital necessities.

Already in its first two weeks, however, the deal has fallen well short of these goals. Just days after the agreement had been reached, Israel announced that it was delaying the reopening of the crucial Rafah crossing—a primary conduit of aid from Egypt—and cutting in half the number of aid trucks it was supposed to allow in, on the grounds that Hamas had been too slow in returning the bodies of deceased hostages. (The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that returning the deceased hostages is a “massive challenge” that requires special equipment and could take weeks.) A few days later, the Israeli government threatened a full shutdown of aid flows in response to what it described as a Hamas “attack” on an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer in Rafah; it backed down under U.S. pressure once it became public that the IDF bulldozer had likely hit unexploded ordinance. Many of the largest NGOs are frozen due to new Israeli registration demands. And because of the continued closure of crossings in the north, much of northern Gaza remains effectively out of reach of aid deliveries, despite cleared roads to those crossings. The result of these actions is that most aid remains blocked, despite the terms of the deal. After an initial surge when the cease-fire was signed, aid flows remain far short of the minimum needed to halt the famine; as of October 21, the World Food Program reports that it has been able to bring in less than half the required volume of food aid.

This points to a problem that has been present throughout the war and even long before. Although international law requires humanitarian access to civilians regardless of the state of conflict between the warring parties, aid to Gaza has continually been used as a bargaining chip between Israel and Hamas, or restricted or blocked by Israel for capricious reasons. Moreover, by basing cease-fire deals on an aid-for-hostages framework, negotiators have implicitly given validation to Israel’s strategy of using the collective punishment of civilians in Gaza as a way to gain leverage or impose pressure on Hamas. The pattern of obstruction extends to the control and oversight of aid delivery itself. Since the early months of the war, Israel has refused to work with UNWRA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, which remains the largest and most capable relief actor in Gaza and a critical support to both Palestinian and international aid groups. And since the deal, Israel has refused to reengage with the agency, hampering large-scale relief efforts.

Despite these daunting challenges, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza can still be reversed. The United States has deployed a new Pentagon-led civil-military coordination center, the CMCC, which has oversight over the aid scale-up. If this entity takes strong leadership and acts as a bulwark against Israeli aid obstruction, it could prove instrumental. But to be effective on the ground, the coordination center must support rather than seek to supplant the UN-led aid coordination system. And the guarantors of the deal—including regional powers and European countries alongside the United States— will need to work closely to support the UN aid infrastructure, ensure that the deal’s humanitarian elements are upheld, and be ready to rapidly apply U.S. and international pressure in the face of any backsliding or interference. Given the many lives at stake if humanitarian aid falters, getting this right must be as much of a priority for the deal’s guarantors as the security elements of the agreement. As famine continues and winter approaches, every delay will take a toll.

FROM SIEGE TO STARVATION

After two years of war, Gaza’s population is in a state of extreme deprivation. The full blockade that Israel imposed on the territory beginning in March was a tipping point, and in August, the UN-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification officially declared a famine was underway in some parts of Gaza. More than 1.9 million people, nearly the entire population of the territory, have been displaced (and often re-displaced) by recurring IDF evacuation orders and sustained bombardment of civilian areas. And even with the cease-fire, many have no homes to return to: the UN estimates that 80 percent of the territory’s residential housing, and 89 percent of its water and sanitation infrastructure, have been damaged or destroyed. Gaza’s pre-war healthcare system has been virtually wiped out, with the World Health Organization reporting in May 2025 that 94 percent of hospitals had been damaged or obliterated.

This dire situation is not an incidental byproduct of the fighting, but a direct consequence of Israeli policies and tactics. In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks, Yoav Gallant, then the Israeli defense minister, publicly threatened a “complete siege” of the territory, including a total cut off of food, water, fuel, and electricity. An IDF spokesperson at that time described Israel’s tactics as “maximum damage.” As the subsequent record of the war has shown, the Israeli government made good on many of these aims. Even before it began its total blockade in March 2025, Israel frequently tightened restrictions on the flow of aid and ramped up bombardment to exert pressure on Hamas and to force Gazans to leave particular areas. Meanwhile, Israel’s campaign against UNRWA undercut the logistical infrastructure that long allowed international aid agencies to reach people in need across Gaza. In October 2024, the Israeli Knesset passed a law banning Israeli authorities from having any contact with the agency, which it alleges has been infiltrated by Hamas. After an investigation, the UN dismissed nine of the agency’s 30,000 staff members for Hamas ties, but found no evidence of the broader Hamas influence the Israeli government has claimed. Under the Biden administration, the United States urged Israel to allow the agency to keep operating.

In fact, restriction and obstruction of aid has a long pedigree in Israel’s engagement with Gaza, dating back to the looser long-term siege that Israel imposed on the territory after Hamas took power in 2007. Israel limited food imports to a caloric threshold just above starvation level, and blocked housing materials, infrastructure supplies, and other basic goods from entering the territory, labelling them as dual use—having potential military applications as well as civilian ones. For years, the Israeli government refused to clarify which items it considered dual-use, relenting only after a legal challenge by the Israeli human rights organization Gisha. Since Hamas’s October 7 attack and the start of the war in Gaza, aid agencies working in the territory reported similarly opaque and arbitrary rejections of hospital equipment and other essential goods by IDF inspectors. Even if the current ceasefire holds, these kinds of roadblocks are likely to persist.

To a degree, several ongoing international legal processes have brought new pressure on Israel to uphold aid access. In March 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded unanimously that Israel must take “all necessary and effective measures without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale … of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.” Although the Israeli government effectively ignored this order, the ruling underscored the broad international consensus that aid obstruction violates international law. (Even the Israeli justice at the ICJ, Aharon Barak, who opposed all of the court’s other measures in the case, supported this one.) Starvation crimes also formed a major part of the International Criminal Court’s indictments against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Gallant, who resigned as defense minister this past January. And aid obstruction, starvation crimes, forced displacement, and attacks on health services featured prominently in a September 2025 UN inquiry report finding that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Although the Israeli government has dismissed each of these rulings, they could make it harder for Israel to fully evade responsibility for maintaining adequate flows of aid as the deal unfolds.

THE AMERICAN BACKSTOP

Even if Israel allows improved aid access, the challenges are vast. To have real impact on Gaza’s spiraling humanitarian crisis, a revitalized UN-led aid system will need to be backstopped by credible diplomatic support against obstruction or diversion. The UN and major humanitarian organizations must be allowed to distribute aid without interference, much as they could after the January 2025 ceasefire, which lasted until March. Whether through UNRWA or a differently configured UN leadership structure, the UN must lead and implement the relief and recovery effort. There is simply no viable alternative to this system, as the Trump plan seems to acknowledge and the ICJ has now reaffirmed in a new advisory opinion ordering Israel to allow UN agencies to provide aid to Gaza. UN agencies and NGOs have operated in Gaza for decades and have reach, capacity, and community trust that no other entity can match.

In this regard, the new U.S. civil-military coordination center, backed by 200 U.S. servicemen, has the potential to perform crucial monitoring and support and ensure that aid delivery is not obstructed. But the CMCC must not attempt to supplant or replace the vital leadership and coordination function of the UN system or allow Israel to do so. Israel’s attempt earlier this year to circumvent the UN and replace it with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—an organization operated by private military contractors under the supervision of the IDF —proved to be a deadly debacle that led to the killing of thousands of Palestinians desperate for food. Although the GHF has now suspended its activities, Israel will likely seek other means to control or restrict the aid operation. Throughout the war, the Israeli government placed heavy restrictions on what items could be brought in, and by whom, often to the point of absurdity. Aid groups reported Israeli inspectors rejecting convoys if syringes were shipped alongside other aid items, and refusing a range of critical aid supplies from anesthesia to tents to water treatment materials. One doctor told me that Israeli border guards had confiscated a bottle of aspirin from him when he entered on a medical mission. Apart from the brief cease-fire periods, the Israeli government also tightly controlled the internal movements of aid organizations within Gaza and frequently rejected movement requests or directed convoys through insecure or impassable areas.

Other past crises offer important lessons in how to address this kind of obstruction. For one, it is essential to have a credible arbiter that has real power to ensure that a belligerent party is not blocking aid. There are numerous precedents for this. As head of the foreign disaster relief office at USAID, I brokered one such mechanism related to Saudi Arabia’s blockade of Yemen in 2015, which produced one of the worst humanitarian crises of the contemporary era. Rather than grant the Saudis—a party to the conflict— veto power over aid inspections, the United States worked to shift the responsibility to the neutral UNVIM, the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism. During the Syrian civil war, the UN Security Council endorsed a similar model, with the UN inspecting aid going into opposition-held northern Syria. Such an approach—allowing aid to flow in a verifiably safe manner and free from interference by either belligerent party in a conflict or post-conflict situation—is urgently needed for Gaza as well.

Trucks carrying Gaza-bound humanitarian aid and fuel in Rafah, Egypt, October 2025 Reuters

Regardless of whether or not it allows UN agencies to operate in Gaza, Israel is unlikely to agree to the UN as overall arbiter of the aid process. But Israel has shown it can cooperate with the United States and with partners in the Gulf. The United States must be prepared to call out violations of the deal by either side, and the new CMCC must use its position to support and facilitate—rather than direct—the work of UN and NGO aid groups. There is already a precedent: the Biden administration’s deployment of a temporary military pier to deliver aid to Gaza last year. Although the pier itself was a failure and eventually scrapped, the ability of the U.S. military to coordinate with the IDF and oversee the distribution of aid helped limit Israeli obstructionism. Drawing on that experience, an independent monitoring entity shepherded by the United States and other regional partners could provide important accountability for postwar aid delivery to Gaza and ensure that the aid access parameters of the deal are upheld.

U.S. backstopping of the aid process, moreover, must be more than a truck-counting exercise. High volumes of food and medicine alone will not make Gaza habitable again. International aid efforts must reverse and extinguish starvation; restore fully functional health and sanitation services throughout the territory; and ensure that Gazans have access to clean water and safe shelter. Gaza desperately needs items that the Israeli government has frequently impeded: emergency shelter supplies, infrastructure reconstruction materials; medical supplies; fuel and power generation, etc. And beyond bringing in a wider range of aid and rehabilitation supplies, aid groups must be allowed to operate safely and without impediment. They will need a substantial ramping up of new financing from donor countries, which has so far been slow to materialize. And they will need greater stability within Gaza to reduce the looting problems that have become widespread over the past year.

Re-establishing security will be essential. Criminality has shot up across the territory during the war; some of it is attributable to Israeli military support for clan gangs that have systematically looted aid convoys. Hamas’s retribution campaign against some of these gangs since the cease fire has also created new challenges. The lack of security and the extreme desperation of the population mean that there will likely be widespread looting and so-called community “self-distribution” of aid during the early weeks of the aid surge. These problems also occurred in the first weeks of the previous cease-fire, which lasted from January to March of this year; once the level of aid reached an equilibrium with the population‘s needs, however, the looting abated. The same pattern is likely to play out now, and there have been some tentative indications already that looting may already be declining.

Diversion or manipulation of humanitarian aid by Hamas must also be prevented, although there is little evidence that this has been happening on any significant scale. Israel has frequently claimed Hamas looting as a pretext for its own restriction on aid delivery, but it has never provided evidence to back up those assertions, which have been refuted by successive international reviews as well as by former U.S. officials, including Jacob Lew, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under Biden.

READY AND WAITING

After two years of war characterized by gratuitous violence, famine, and systematic aid obstruction, Gaza finally may finally get a chance to breathe. A massive surge of lifesaving humanitarian aid is both a moral obligation and—given the structure of the peace deal—a strategic imperative. If the deal’s guarantors are unable to ensure aid delivery, it could lead to the collapse of the ceasefire itself. And even if the deal survives, a failure to make good on the humanitarian aims will drive yet more Palestinians into famine and worsen the already gruesome human toll.

These worst-case outcomes can be avoided. But to capitalize on the breathing room created by the deal, the guarantors will have to shield aid operations from the political manipulation that has plagued them since the war’s outset. Oversight and accountability will be crucial and will best be served if the United States and its regional and European partners establish a credible and robust coordination and oversight mechanism to uphold the deal’s humanitarian provisions. Above all, they most allow the UN and the many humanitarian organizations, which have years of experience in Gaza and the resources and tools needed, to finally do their jobs. By putting aid at the center of its deal, the Trump administration has rekindled hope that the crisis can finally be turned around. But that can only occur if humanitarian professionals are given the unfettered access, safety, and support they need.

Foreign Affairs · More by Jeremy Konyndyk · October 23, 2025

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website