2 July 2025

India-U.S. Relations: Between Courteous Acquaintance and Civilizational Dissonance

 Ajay Jha 

In the realm of international diplomacy, India and the United States are often described as natural partners. Yet, beneath the photo-ops and defense agreements lies a complex reality: this is not a relationship of equals in cultural perception or mutual understanding. Rather, it is a courteous acquaintance often marred by deep civilizational dissonance and misaligned expectations.

The Illusion of Natural Alliance

In Washington’s strategic calculus, India is often viewed through the lens of utility: a counterweight to China, a lucrative defense market, and a potential ideological ally. From this vantage, the U.S. finds it frustrating when New Delhi does not toe the line—be it on Russia, Iran, or global trade rules. But India does not see itself as a junior partner in any Western coalition. It sees itself as a civilizational state—an ancient, enduring entity with its own norms, systems, and path to modernity.

Civilizational Memory vs. Modern Superpower

India’s worldview is shaped not merely by the last 75 years of independence, but by thousands of years of philosophical, cultural, and social evolution. Baked into Indian Statecraft are concepts like dharma, which emphasizes moral duty and balance. There is also pluralism, and relational diplomacy, which emphasizes mutual respect and strategic autonomy. This contrasts sharply with America’s liberal-internationalist worldview, rooted in Enlightenment values such as liberty and free markets. Included is missionary zeal, and a tendency to universalize one’s experience.

This civilizational self-awareness makes India uniquely resistant to pressure. When the U.S. imposes moral lectures or sanctions threats (as with CAATSA over Russian defense deals), India sees not principled diplomacy but a form of modern-day imperial overreach.

Can India's fast-growing defence firms challenge the global biggies?


Bharat forge chairman and Managing Director Baba Kalyani summed up the key takeaway from Operation Sindoor at the recently held Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) annual business summit. “Executed with strategic clarity and precise coordination, it showcased not only the operational brilliance of the Indian armed forces but also the growing strength of India’s indigenous defence manufacturing ecosystem.”

The operations were a defining moment for India’s fast-growing defence manufacturing sector. The prospect of more orders prompted some to announce capital expenditure plans. “We have to take responsibility to build equipment fast so that we can provide our armed forces much more than what they have today and what they need in future,” Kalyani added. Pune-based Bharat Forge is one of India’s leading private sector defence manufacturers.

Almost on cue, Dassault Aviation and Tata Advanced Systems announced four production transfer agreements to make fuselage of the Rafale fighter jet at a new facility in Hyderabad. The partnership is a significant achievement for India’s aim of becoming a major defence manufacturing hub. It marks a significant first for the €6.2 billion French aerospace company as the Hyderabad facility, to be set up by Tata Advanced Systems, will be the first factory outside France to manufacture Rafale fuselage. 

The partnership has the potential to boost the country’s defence and aerospace ecosystem and encourage other biggies to explore manufacturing tie-ups with Indian companies. At present, indigenous manufacturing is primarily driven by partnerships between government-run Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and industry.

India Hits China with Tariffs on Key Imports, Counters Fertilizer Blockade Head-On


India is no longer playing nice when it comes to Beijing’s economic muscle-flexing. In a strong dual-front response to China's trade provocations, the Indian government has imposed anti-dumping duties on six critical chemical imports while also scrambling to respond to a silent but significant squeeze on specialty fertilizers.

 With the bilateral trade deficit touching a staggering $99.2 billion, the message from New Delhi is clear: economic sovereignty comes before anything else.

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) recently concluded detailed investigations that confirmed what many domestic producers have long alleged—cheap Chinese chemicals were flooding the Indian market and undercutting local industries. Acting on these findings, the Ministry of Commerce moved fast,

 levying duties ranging from $20.87 per kg to over $2,000 per tonne. These tariffs will stay in place for the next five years.
Key Sectors Targeted in Duty Crackdown

The list of chemicals affected reads like a who’s who of industrial essentials. PEDA, critical to herbicide production, now carries duties up to $2,017.9 per tonne. Acetonitrile, a solvent crucial in pharma manufacturing, gets slapped with up to $481 per tonne in duties, while Vitamin A Palmitate—used widely in nutritional supplements—draws a fresh tariff of $20.87 per kg.

At 80, the U.N. Is Down But Not Out

Richard Gowan
Source Link

A U.N. peacekeeper in a blue helmet is seen in profile as he holds the pole of a blue U.N. flag in front of a razor wire border fence. Three other blue-helmet troops are visible behind him, holding rifles and peering at the camera. 

The landscape beyond the fence is a dusty hill spotted with sparse plants.U.N. peacekeeping troops from the Indian contingent secure the Lebanese border with Israel, seen on the outskirts of of Kfarchouba on Aug. 26, 2023. Marwan Naamani/Picture Alliance via Getty Images

My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now | Log In

The United Nations celebrates its 80th birthday in a state of advanced disarray. Signed by the representatives of 50 states on June 26, 1945, 

the organization’s charter set out to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Today, the U.N. has 193 members, but amid ongoing bloodshed in Ukraine and Gaza and elsewhere, none of them—including the five veto powers in the Security Council—can pretend that it is succeeding.

The war between Israel and Iran has only highlighted the organization’s limitations. The Security Council has met repeatedly to discuss the crisis;

 ambassadors have traded barbs; and China, Russia, and Pakistan drafted a resolution condemning the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. But this is all little more than diplomatic performance art, and nobody really believes that the U.N. has the authority to halt the war.

1 July 2025

Would Beijing Welcome Escalation in the Middle East?

Deng Yuwen, 

Damage in a residential building in the Saadat Abad neighborhood of Tehran on June 26, following the Israeli attack on Iran.Damage in a residential building in the Saadat Abad neighborhood of Tehran on June 26, following the Israeli attack on Iran. Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now | Log In
June 26, 2025, 11:12 AM

Beijing is trying to work out its position following the U.S. attack on Iran and the resulting, if tenuous, cease-fire between Israel and Iran. A longer conflict will inevitably spill over and might even drag in major powers beyond the United States. So how does the conflict affect China’s interests? Would Beijing prefer to see it escalate further, or, as its official statements suggest, does it truly want tensions to cool down and a cease-fire to take hold?



Answering this requires a two-pronged analysis, one that considers both China’s Middle East strategy and its broader strategic rivalry with the United States.

‘Not something to celebrate': As it turns 80 and faces dwindling global clout, can the UN survive?

EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations, a collaborative global dream built into reality out of the ashes of World War II, marks its 80th anniversary this month. There’s little to celebrate.

Its clout on the world stage is diminished. Facing major funding cuts from the United States and others, it has been forced to shed jobs and start tackling long-delayed reforms. Its longtime credo of “multilateralism” is under siege.

 Its most powerful body, the Security Council, has been blocked from taking action to end the two major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

And as the latest conflict between Israel, Iran and the United States flared, it watched from the sidelines.

Four generations after its founding, as it tries to chart a new path for its future, a question hangs over the institution and the nearly 150,000 people it employs and oversees: Can the United Nations remain relevant in an increasingly contentious and fragmented world?

Bad News: More Than 80% Of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Cannot Be Achieved By 2030 – OpEd

Jan Servaes

As is the custom every year, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), which has been operating under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General since 2012, discusses the progress made on the SDGs since they were adopted by all UN member states in 2015. 

While concerns were already expressed in previous years, this 10th anniversary edition of the SDR is downright alarming. Limited and declining support for multilateralism within the UN by major powers, and insufficient budgetary space, pose major obstacles to achieving the global goals.

In preparation for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (Ff4D) scheduled for 30 June to 3 July in Seville, Spain, this SDR 2025 outlines urgent reforms to the Global Financial Architecture (GFA) and includes, for the first time, an assessment of which countries have made the most progress towards the SDGs.

The upcoming Ff4D conference therefore offers a crucial opportunity for UN member states to reform this system and ensure that international finance flows at scale to Emerging Market and Developing Economies (EMDEs) to accelerate sustainable development.

Since 2016, the SDR has provided the most up-to-date data to track and rank the performance of all UN member states on the SDGs. This year, more than 200,000 individual data points were used to produce more than 200 country and regional SDG profiles.

The SDR includes the SDG Index and dashboards, which rank all UN member states based on their performance on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This year’s report includes a new index (SDGi), which focuses on 17 key indicators to track overall progress on the SDGs over time.


Carl Von Clausewitz And The Clausewitzian Viewpoint Of Warfare: A Theoretical Approach – Analysis

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic

In dealing with both theoretical and practical points of view about war, at least six fundamental questions arise: 1) What is war?; 2) What types of war exist?; 3) Why do wars occur?; 4) What is the connection between war and justice?; 5) The question of war crimes?; and 6) Is it possible to replace war with the so-called “perpetual peace”?

Probably, up to today, the most used and reliable understanding of war is its short but powerful definition by Carl von Clausewitz:

“War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” [On War, 1832].

It can be considered the terrifying consequences if, in practice, Clausewitz’s term “merely” from a simple phrase about the war would be applied in the post-WWII nuclear era and the Cold War (for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962).

Nevertheless, he became one of the most important influencers on Realism in international relations (IR). To remind ourselves, Realism in political science is a theory of IR that accepts war as a very normal and natural part of the relationships between states (and after WWII, of other political actors as well) in global politics.

 Realists are keen to stress that wars and all other kinds of military conflicts are not just natural (meaning normal) but even inevitable. Therefore, all theories that do not accept the inevitability of war and military conflicts (for instance, Feminism) are, in fact, unrealistic.

Iran’s Nuclear Sites Under Fire: What It Means for Pakistan

Tayyaba Khurshid

A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit lands at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, after supporting Operation Midnight Hammer, the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, June 22, 2025.Credit: U.S. Air Force

The recent wave of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities – and Iran’s counter-attacks – amplified security concerns among regional and global actors alike. For countries like Pakistan, which shares a 909-kilometer border with Iran, 

the attacks are more than a Middle Eastern security issue. During the conflict, Pakistan unequivocally stood with Iran diplomatically, condemning both the Israeli and U.S. attacks and calling upon the international community to adhere to the rule-based order for peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond.

The conflict involved Israeli military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities – including on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow – the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists and top military brass, and attacks on ballistic missile factories. Israel’s attacks were followed by U.S. strikes meant to obliterate Iran’s nuclear weapon program. 

Pakistan, being a nuclear-armed state adjacent to Iran, interpreted the attacks in the context of its own security as these actions violated international norms on nuclear safety and security. The Israeli and U.S. military strikes risk the sanctity of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and international nonproliferation norms.

What Will Happen If Iran Restarts Its Nuclear Enrichment Sites?

Greg Priddy

By some measures, the 12 days of airstrikes by Israel and the US against Iran were a remarkable success. The campaign culminated on June 21 with B-2 strikes by the US using our largest bunker buster munitions, a capability Israel lacked, as well as cruise missiles, doing significant damage to Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordo, and Esfahan.

Israel had very effectively established air superiority over Iran, destroying much of its air defense network and the paltry Iranian Air Force. Iran also painfully refrained from retaliating against the US entry to the conflict, staging only a token missile launch at the main US base in Qatar, which did no damage. Some of Iran’s missiles succeeded in evading Israel’s defenses, but only 28 Israelis were killed. After that, President Trump was able to pull both Israel and Iran into a ceasefire rapidly. Even the “risk premium” in oil prices quickly evaporated after the token Iranian retaliation against the US.

Was the American Bombing of Iran a Success?

Despite all of this, the apparent success of the military campaign has not yielded a stable equilibrium, a point Trump appears alternately to either be in denial about or trying to obscure, even while acknowledging that renewed negotiations with Tehran will be necessary. In remarks in The Hague on June 25 at the NATO Summit, Trump said, “The last thing they want to do is enrich anything right now. They want to recover.”

Trump also said, “We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran. We may sign an agreement. I don’t know. To me, I don’t think it’s that necessary.” When he was asked if the US intended to strike Iran if it reconstituted its enrichment program, Trump said, “Sure.”

Does Collective Security in the Middle East Still Have a Chance?

 Amr Hamzawy

The Middle East Program in Washington combines in-depth regional knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to provide deeply informed recommendations. With expertise in the Gulf, North Africa, Iran, and Israel/Palestine, we examine crosscutting themes of political, economic, and social change in both English and Arabic.Learn More

The war between Israel, the United States, and Iran has pushed the Middle East into a state of profound instability. On one side, Israel (assisted by the United States) maintains significant advantages in military, technological, and intelligence capabilities that have wreaked destruction on Iran’s nuclear facilities and scientists, as well as its military capabilities.

On the other, the government of the Islamic Republic still retains missiles, drones, and remnants of its regional proxies to launch missiles at Israel, threaten U.S. military bases in the region, and block or hamper critical waterways for shipping. Meanwhile, much of the Gulf is sidelined.

As an uneasy ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, it’s worth examining what comes next for a region with dramatically shifting power dynamics. Can an imbalance of power between Israel’s vast capabilities and those of its neighbors truly produce security or lasting peace? The Middle Eastern countries that seek collective security may be losing the strategic war to Israeli aggression.

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran has used its network of proxies to exert its influence in the region. But after Israel’s successful targeting of these proxies and allies—and Israeli and American attacks on Iran itself—the likelihood of Iran reclaiming its status as a powerful regional force, a rival to Israel, 

The Price of Protection

Sophia Besch

The Europe Program in Washington explores the political and security developments within Europe, transatlantic relations, and Europe’s global role. Working in coordination with Carnegie Europe in Brussels, the program brings together U.S. and European policymakers and experts on strategic issues facing Europe.Learn More

The NATO summit at The Hague this week delivered what some feared it might not: a headline agreement that kept the alliance intact. The “five for-five” deal—5 percent of GDP spent on defense in exchange for a reaffirmation of NATO’s Article 5—was tailored to appeal to U.S. President Donald Trump and to demonstrate to the American public that European allies are finally shouldering more of the burden. The agreement provided political cover for those in Washington who still believe in NATO. It also avoided an open crisis with a president openly skeptical of the alliance he is once again meant to lead.

Yet in securing that outcome, allies paid a political and strategic price. The alliance emerged alive but diminished. Secretary General Mark Rutte’s performance at the summit typified the mood. His sycophantic praise of Trump betrayed not just diplomatic pragmatism, but a loss of institutional self-respect. With the theatrics concluded, allies must now reckon with what was actually agreed—and how little the new targets say about NATO’s ability to confront the threats it faces.

The 5 percent target is made up of two components: 3.5 percent for defense and 1.5 percent for dual-use infrastructure, civil preparedness, and efforts to strengthen the alliance’s defense industrial base. The 1.5 percent category is particularly susceptible to creative accounting, with allies potentially tempted to reclassify civilian infrastructure projects as security spending. The goal is not without merit—NATO does require better mobility, resilience, and logistics—but the door is wide open to manipulation.


The Most Significant Long-Term Consequence of the U.S. Strikes on Iran

Nicole Grajewski

Operation Midnight Hammer represented an extraordinary demonstration of American military capabilities. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers targeted Iran’s nuclear installations at Fordow and Natanz with fourteen 30,000-pound bombs while a guided missile submarine simultaneously launched more than two dozen cruise missiles at Isfahan, 

Iran’s largest nuclear research complex. The strikes penetrated Iran’s most protected facilities, though preliminary intelligence assessments suggest the impact may have fallen short of the White House’s claims of “total obliteration.”

The fundamental limitation of the strikes lies in the distinction between infrastructure damage and capability elimination. Military action can destroy equipment and facilities, but it cannot eliminate knowledge, dispersed materials, 

or the underlying strategic drivers of nuclear weapons development. By reportedly relocating its most sensitive materials ahead of the strikes, Iran appears to have safeguarded the core of its enrichment program, while intact bunkers may still provide a springboard for reconstruction.

Whether Operation Midnight Hammer effectively curbs the proliferation threat from Iran hinges on two interlinked factors: Tehran’s domestic political resolve to curb any weapons-development trajectory and the ability of diplomatic efforts to reestablish rigorous safeguards backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Absent both, the strike’s tactical effectiveness will lead to little more than a temporary pause—delaying rather than preventing the next confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Xinjiang Security Expo Reflects the Limits of U.S. Sanctions


The annual Central Asia Digital Security Expo in Xinjiang is supported by the U.S.-sanctioned Xinjiang Public Security Bureau and brings technology firms together to network and market their products under the context of the CCP’s ongoing campaign of repression.

Federal sanctions, due diligence, and regulatory policies have not limited U.S. exposure to human rights risks or eliminated funding for Chinese corporate R&D, which can be used to innovate the security and surveillance state.

Nearly one third of the Expo participants analyzed have international connections, especially to the United States, in the form of overseas customers and branches, attendance at U.S. expos, or foreign regulatory approvals.

Seemingly benign participants present alongside direct perpetrators, who have built Xinjiang Public Security Bureau infrastructure or sell torture devices used by the Bureau.

At the end of August, security and technology companies will arrive in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, for the 11th annual Central Asia Digital Security Expo (Central Asia Digital Security Expo). With support from the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (XPSB), a U.S.-sanctioned entity, the expo will showcase the latest technologies for surveillance, policing, and social control. [1] According to its website, 

the expo serves to “improve the level of the northwestern region’s public security technology and prevention technology” (ไธบๅ…จ้ขๆๅ‡่ฅฟๅŒ—ๅœฐๅŒบๅ…ฌๅ…ฑๅฎ‰ๅ…จๆŠ€ๆœฏๅ’Œ้˜ฒ่ŒƒๆŠ€ๆœฏๆฐดๅนณ) by inviting companies to Xinjiang to collaborate and market their products (Central Asia Digital Security Expo, May 18, 2020).

Tรผrkiye Builds Nuclear Plant With Russia to Boost Energy Security


Tรผrkiye is moving ahead with its first nuclear power plant in Akkuyu in partnership with Russia to expand domestic energy production and meet economic growth.

Financing delays and sanctions-related challenges are testing the resilience of the Tรผrkiye-Russia nuclear partnership, as the two countries seek to keep the project on track for a 2028 launch.

The $20 billion plant is the first in the world to be constructed under the build-own-operate model by Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom. This raises questions about long-term Russian influence in Tรผrkiye’s energy infrastructure.

On May 26, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan discussed the situation at Tรผrkiye’s first nuclear power plant (NPP) with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow (President of Russia, May 26; TASS, May 27). According to Fidan, the two discussed “how we can resolve financing issues” of the NPP, which is facing “sanctions and some problems arising” (TASS, May 29). The problems Fidan referred to are Tรผrkiye’s $7 billion payment delay to Russia’s state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom (Tรผrkiye Today; Habertรผrk

May 27). Tรผrkiye has reportedly not met Rosatom’s requests for financial concessions, including exceptions from withholding tax on the payments (Tรผrkiye Today; Habertรผrk, May 27). If the financing problems are resolved, 

Ankara will be on schedule to operate its first NPP by the end of 2028 (Anadolu Agency, December 12, 2024). The Akkuyu NPP will be the first in the world to be constructed using the build-own-operate (BOO) model by Rosatom, which gives the Russian company the right to construct and operate the project. As Rosatom is ultimately controlled by the Kremlin, this creates a potential security risk for Tรผrkiye and its Black Sea neighbors, while undermining Ankara’s position in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).


Closing the GAP: Strategic Presence Through Embedded U.S. Military Advisors



Strategic competition between great powers creates critical presence gaps that undermine long-term American influence and early warning capabilities. While adversaries deploy networks of advisors to build persistent relationships and shape the development of partner nations, American engagement remains largely episodic and crisis-driven. The Global Advisor Program (GAP) provides a revolutionary approach to strategic presence by institutionalizing embedded U.S. military advisors, designated as Volckmann Advisors, within partner nation defense establishments.

Drawing from Russell Volckmann's successful World War II guerrilla campaign in the Philippines and building upon Lieutenant General Eric Wendt's 2011 strategic vision, the Global Advisor Program addresses the institutional failures that prevented the original Volckmann Program from achieving lasting impact. By establishing a unified training and education pipeline at the Naval Postgraduate School that integrates Foreign Area Officer methodologies, Military Personnel Exchange Program infrastructure, and Special Operations Forces partnership expertise, GAP creates a scalable framework for persistent competition and crisis prevention.

The program's dual-use architecture enables Volckmann Advisors to shape outcomes during peacetime competition while providing critical force multiplication during potential conflicts. Through systematic cultural training, education, language proficiency development, and deliberate career management, GAP transforms sporadic advisory efforts into enduring strategic assets. Initial deployment of twenty Volckmann Advisors to Indo-Pacific and European theaters by 2027 would demonstrate proof of concept while establishing the foundation for global expansion.

Strategic competition demands presence that determines influence and relationships that shape outcomes. GAP provides America's asymmetric advantage: the ability to embed trust before crises emerge, multiply partner capabilities during conflicts, and maintain influence through principled partnership rather than coercive presence. Where strategic gaps exist, GAP fills them.

Connectivity and Security Drive Russia’s Elevated Ties With Taliban


Russia’s concerns regarding threats emanating from the Islamic State Khorasan Province and diversions from north-south transit routes have been the driving factors behind Moscow’s rapprochement with the Taliban.

Afghanistan and Russia are close to establishing official diplomatic relations, but the Kremlin will likely choose a more cautious approach, meaning that official recognition of the Taliban government might still be a distant possibility.

Russia’s shifting posture toward the Taliban fits into the wider regional trends, with the Central Asian countries attempting to build relations with Kabul to improve regional security and connectivity.

In mid-May, Russia hosted the Russia-Afghanistan Business Forum as part of the Russia-Islamic World Economic Forum in Kazan. Russian and Taliban officials discussed developing transit routes to Afghanistan via Central Asia and Pakistan, as well as an additional route through Turkmenistan and the Caspian Sea. Moscow has placed special emphasis on linking the Trans-Afghan Railway (still under construction) with the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), primarily to maintain connectivity to the Indian Ocean (Russia’s Pivot to Asia, May 20).

The event followed a Russian Supreme Court decision in early April that removed the Taliban from the Kremlin’s terrorist list, thus paving the way for official dealings with the de facto ruling government (see EDM, November 13, 2024; The Moscow Times, April 17). The decision was long in the making, as Russia has steadily increased engagement with Kabul since the militant group regained control in August 2021 (see EDM, July 29, 2024, January 15). 

Xinjiang Security Expo Reflects the Limits of U.S. Sanctions


The annual Central Asia Digital Security Expo in Xinjiang is supported by the U.S.-sanctioned Xinjiang Public Security Bureau and brings technology firms together to network and market their products under the context of the CCP’s ongoing campaign of repression.

Federal sanctions, due diligence, and regulatory policies have not limited U.S. exposure to human rights risks or eliminated funding for Chinese corporate R&D, which can be used to innovate the security and surveillance state.

Nearly one third of the Expo participants analyzed have international connections, especially to the United States, in the form of overseas customers and branches, attendance at U.S. expos, or foreign regulatory approvals.

Seemingly benign participants present alongside direct perpetrators, who have built Xinjiang Public Security Bureau infrastructure or sell torture devices used by the Bureau.

At the end of August, security and technology companies will arrive in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, for the 11th annual Central Asia Digital Security Expo (Central Asia Digital Security Expo). With support from the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau (XPSB), a U.S.-sanctioned entity, the expo will showcase the latest technologies for surveillance, policing, and social control. [1] According to its website, the expo serves to “improve the level of the northwestern region’s public security technology and prevention technology” (ไธบๅ…จ้ขๆๅ‡่ฅฟๅŒ—ๅœฐๅŒบๅ…ฌๅ…ฑๅฎ‰ๅ…จๆŠ€ๆœฏๅ’Œ้˜ฒ่ŒƒๆŠ€ๆœฏๆฐดๅนณ) by inviting companies to Xinjiang to collaborate and market their products (Central Asia Digital Security Expo, May 18, 2020).


US gained nothing from strikes, Iran's supreme leader says


Iran's supreme leader has insisted the US "gained no achievements" from strikes on its nuclear facilities, in his first public address since a ceasefire with Israel was agreed on Tuesday.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the strikes did not "accomplish anything significant" to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme, and described the retaliation against an American air base in Qatar as dealing a "heavy blow".

It came as Washington doubled down on its assessment that the strikes had severely undermined Iran's nuclear ambitions.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said intelligence gathered by the US and Israel indicated the operation "significantly damaged the nuclear programme, setting it back by years".
Advertisement

Previously, US President Donald Trump said the strikes against three key nuclear sites inside Iran "totally obliterated" them, and has responded furiously to reports citing unnamed American officials suggesting the damage may have been less extensive than anticipated.

Speaking alongside senior general Dan Caine at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday morning, Hegseth said the mission was a "historic success" that had "rendered [Iranian] enrichment facilities inoperable".

During an at times combative exchange with reporters, Hegseth also said the US was "not aware of any intelligence" which indicated the enriched uranium had moved out of Fordo - the deeply buried facility which the US targeted with powerful so-called bunker buster bombs - prior to the strikes.


Tariff Trap: How US Protectionism Is Crippling Myanmar’s Garment Industry – Analysis

Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre

As Trump 2.0 intensifies his tariff war, Myanmar’s garment industry, already reeling from military rule and economic collapse, is emerging as one of the least expected but most vulnerable casualties.

Key Takeaways:Myanmar’s garment industry, once a low-cost export hope, collapses under U.S. tariffs, compounded by political instability and global supply chain fragility.

The Trump administration’s 2025 tariff hikes, including a 44% import tax on Myanmar goods, devastate export competitiveness and accelerate job losses.

Over 80% of the industry’s workforce is women, and the trade shock is worsening gender inequality, forcing thousands into precarity or migration.

As President Donald Trump returns to power, his administration has intensified its tariff policy, particularly targeting China with steep increases on a wide range of imports.

However, the ripple effects of this protectionist approach extend far beyond Beijing. Once seen as a potential beneficiary of the U.S.-China trade, Myanmar now finds itself caught in the crossfire. Once a growing center for low-cost manufacturing, Myanmar’s garment industry, dependent on Chinese raw materials, western markets, and foreign investment, is struggling to survive.

This article explores the unfolding “tariff trap” that is dismantling Myanmar’s garment industry, examining its wide-reaching impact on trade, jobs, human rights, economic stability, and the long-term future of one of the country’s most vital sectors.

Historical Context: U.S.-China Tariffs and Ripple Effects on Myanmar
Best clothing retailers

Welfare or Warfare? The Spanish Agony in Numbers


Old textbooks in economics used to explain consumer choice with an example that pinned plow bills against cannons. The premise was that if we want to feed people—put plow bills in the soil—we will have to give up our national defense.

For a long time, that choice seemed to be little more than an academic exercise to set the brains of bright young economics students in motion. Recently, though, the old hypothetical tension between two necessities has emerged as a real one, and it is affecting policy and politics in individual NATO states. The latest example is Spain, as reported by our news writer Tamas Orban:

For weeks, it looked like the 5% target would not get approved due to opposition from Spanish PM Pedro Sรกnchez. On Sunday, however, Sรกnchez dropped his veto after being promised “flexible” spending options—meaning Spain would not have to spend as much as others, as long as it still meets NATO’s updated “capability targets.”

Deutsche Welle points specifically to the resistance to higher defense spending that Prime Minister Sรกnchez is meeting from his left-wing political allies. They spell out the ‘plow bills or cannons’ dilemma, refusing to accept any cuts in health and education to make room for a bigger military budget. Although the prime minister has already promised to safeguard social benefits, DW explains that critics on the Left claim that cuts are already being made to make room for a bigger military.

It remains to be seen if the hard Left is correct on the budget cuts, but they have a valid point when it comes to the welfare-warfare dichotomy. Figure 1 shows two contrasting trends, on the one hand, a steady growth in the share of government outlays going to the welfare state; on the other hand, a long-term decline in the defense share:

How Geopolitical Tensions Are Shaping Cyber Warfare


As global conflicts intensify, cyberspace is becoming just as contentious as the physical world. Digital frontlines are expanding rapidly, with nation-state-backed actors launching attacks against governments, infrastructure,

 finance, and private enterprise. What's changing isn't just the scale; it's also the focus. Today's adversaries adapt faster and act smarter, blending old tactics with new delivery methods and exploiting the same weaknesses that have gone unpatched for years. Cybersecurity professionals don't just need more data; they need to know what's happening in their neighborhood.

Regional Flashpoints and Nation-State Playbooks

Cyber conflict isn't monolithic — each nation-state brings its own motivations, methods, and level of sophistication to the digital battlefield.
Iran: Focused and Persistent

Iranian threat actors such as APT33, OilRig, Charming Kitten, and MuddyWater operate with clear political and ideological objectives. Their campaigns rely on social engineering, spear-phishing, custom malware, and known vulnerabilities. While their operations may lack some of the technical sophistication of their Chinese or Russian counterparts, these adversaries remain highly persistent and focused.

They aggressively target adversaries and dissidents, often aiming at aerospace, defense, and critical infrastructure. Their goal isn't just access — it's influence, disruption, and visibility. From the 2022 Albanian government takedown to the 2024 leak of private Israeli official data, the message is consistent: Disruption is a tool of statecraft.

An Operational Assessment of PLA Autonomous Airpower


In the first part of this series, I broke down the technical architecture—the datalinks, hardware, and algorithms—that underpins the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) autonomous airpower. Now, we shift from engineering to execution and operational art.

To start, two points to frame our analysis.

First, the timeline. The PLA is working to field many of these autonomous systems and maturing/integrating them into the force by 2035—when the PLA is set to “basically complete” its modernization. This analysis, therefore, focuses on the capabilities and concepts the PLA aims to employ within the next ten years or so.

Second, I want to build on existing scholarship. The China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI) recently published an awesome report, “PLA Concepts of UAV Swarms and Manned/Unmanned Teaming,” which provides a thorough survey of the PLA’s doctrinal literature. Here we’re going to apply a lot of the concepts identified by CASI to a specific, high-escalation scenario: a direct conflict with the United States during a Taiwan contingency.

Orders and Observations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid

A Phased, Global War Plan

In a Taiwan conflict, the PLA would prosecute two major campaigns simultaneously: the blockade or invasion itself, and a parallel counter-intervention campaign designed to deter, delay, or defeat U.S. forces. 

AI Disruption Is Real — And So Are The Opportunities – Analysis

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Artificial intelligence has become a powerful and visible force that is rapidly transforming how work is done across all industries, job categories and economic levels. From factory floors to corporate boardrooms, AI is automating tasks, shifting responsibilities and even altering the definition of entire professions. What began as a tool to enhance productivity has now evolved into a disruptive presence that is challenging the foundational structures of modern employment.

In the industrial and blue-collar sectors, AI is driving dramatic changes that were once thought to be decades away. Smart robots and AI-driven machinery are taking on tasks once carried out by humans — such as quality control, equipment monitoring and even basic assembly. Warehouses and fulfillment centers like those operated by Amazon now rely on automated systems not just to move goods, but to predict inventory levels, route shipments more efficiently and even communicate with customer service systems.

These developments do not simply reduce the number of people needed; they also reduce the need for human decision-making in day-to-day operations. What is especially striking is that these technological advancements were not introduced gradually over a generation — they have arrived and taken hold within just a few years.

White-collar professions are undergoing their own revolution. Traditionally thought of as insulated from automation, jobs in finance, law, marketing and administration are now increasingly being augmented — or even replaced — by AI tools. Companies are using natural language processing models to write legal documents, analyze spreadsheets, draft marketing campaigns and even screen job candidates.

India’s Digital Divide and the Consequent Welfare Bias

Prachi Bansal

India’s push for digital IDs and algorithms is creating a hidden layer of inequality. The Aadhaar system, which forms the basis for effective and transparent delivery of several government welfare schemes, has become “more a barrier than an enabler,” especially for women in the informal sector.

About 36 percent of 200 migrant women workers interviewed for a study said they faced biometric authentication failures during pregnancy-related hospital visits. What will be the human cost if the future of welfare schemes is direct benefit transfers enabled by authentication mechanisms, biometrics and artificial intelligence?

Algorithmic bias is not new. Several years ago, a celebrated book focused on the severe gender and racial biases embedded in Google’s autosuggestions. Most illustrations in the book continue to be valid today. For instance, a Google Images search for the term “beautiful” throws up not paintings or a mountain but hundreds of women’s faces. The women are young, light-skinned, and slim.

A second example is how ChatGPT generates different letters of recommendation for men and women students with identical scholarly achievements. Men are described as “ambitious,” “driven,” and “leaders” while women are “compassionate,” “supportive,” and “team players.” Similarly, Amazon scrapped an AI hiring tool that downgraded applicants with the word “women’s” (for example, “women’s chess club”) in their resume.

Even digital mapping platforms such as Google Maps and Wikipedia reflect stark geographic inequalities, with significant under-representation of the Global South. Despite high population densities, regions such as South Asia and Africa remain digitally marginalized.

The examples cited above are technology-specific but hit home when digital governance is used as the primary mechanism for welfare delivery.


How The IMF Finances Itself And Why It Matters For The Global Economy – OpEd

Julie Kozac and Bernard Lauwers

The IMF may be best known for lending to crisis-hit countries. But what about its own finances? How does it finance its critical functions and cover its operational expenses?

Let’s remember that the IMF is not only a global financial firefighter. It also provides policy advice and technical support to help members create the right economic conditions and institutions for maintaining economic and financial stability, boosting growth, jobs, and living standards.

Fulfilling this mandate is made possible by a unique mechanism for generating and deploying resources. Think of it as a credit union for countries—with a lending capacity of nearly $1 trillion.
Credit union for countries

Consider how a credit union works. Not only do members put in money to earn interest on their deposits, but they can also tap this pool of resources by taking out a loan.

The IMF works in a similar way. Its 191 member countries are assigned individual “quotas” based broadly on their relative positions in the world economy. These quotas are the primary building blocks of the Fund’s financial structure. They determine the maximum financial contribution of each member, and they also help define how much a country can borrow from the Fund.

It’s a model that benefits borrowers and creditors alike. In exchange for providing resources for IMF lending, member countries receive an interest-bearing, liquid, and secure claim on the IMF. Importantly, that claim counts as part of members’ foreign exchange reserves.

This also means that, unlike many other international organizations, the IMF does not rely on annual fees or grants from budget appropriations by its members.


Did AI Almost Start World War III? – OpEd

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Recall that the Covid fiasco went into overdrive when Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London generated a wildly incorrect estimate of the fatality rate of the virus from China. He had two forecasts, one without lockdowns (death everywhere) and one with (not terrible). The idea was to inspire the replication of the CCP’s extreme methods of people control in the West.

That model, first shared in classified realms, flipped the narrative. Once select advisors – Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci among them – presented it to Trump, he went from opposing lockdowns to getting in front of the seemingly inevitable.

Before long, every Gates-funded NGO was pushing more such models that proved the point. Masses of people observed the models as if they were an accurate reflection of reality. Major media reported on them daily.

As the fiasco dragged on, so did data fakery. The PCR tests were generating false positives, giving the impression of an unfolding calamity even though medically significant infections were highly limited. Infections and even exposures were redefined as cases, for the first time in epidemiological history.Then came the subsidized “deaths from Covid” that clearly generated waves of misclassification that underscore the overestimation of the fatality rate.

It’s awesome and terrifying once you add it all up. Bad models and bad data created a killer pandemic of uncertain gravity that was later supposedly solved by shots tested with bad data and whose efficacy was further demonstrated by awful models and data.

There is surely a lesson here. And yet the romance with bad models and bad data is not entirely over.

There is evidence that a very similar scenario unfolded with regard to the claim that Iran was constructing a nuclear weapon, resulting in a hellfire of bombs and death in both Iran and Israel.


The Uncertainty in the Aftermath of the U.S. Bombing in Iran

Brian Michael Jenkins

The U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites Sunday had a concrete strategic objective: thwart Iran's ability to enrich nuclear material and potentially build nuclear weapons. It was intended to make the world a safer place.

At the moment, however, the world remains a dangerous place. This is the case despite a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, and a retaliatory missile strike that was intentionally telegraphed by Iran in order to de-escalate.

Iran will adjust its strategy, not its strategic objective. Its goals remain to acquire nuclear weapons, destroy Israel, and dominate the Middle East. That fight does not end with this round. How Iran will truly respond is still an open question.

The Iranian regime's paramount objective is its survival. (Though he reversed course, President Trump overtly mentioned the possibility of regime change in Iran.) Although Iran's military capabilities have been reduced by Israeli actions, they have not been eliminated. If it seeks to avenge the bombing, it also has other options that it has utilized in the recent past.

The US strike on Iran’s nuclear sites: preliminary thoughts on the outcomes

Herbert Lin 

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (left) and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked Sunday about the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Share

On June 21, 2025, the United States executed a major military strike against Iran, targeting three of its most critical nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The Fordow facility, deeply buried beneath a mountain near the city of Qom, has long been considered Iran’s most secure uranium enrichment site. Its depth has been estimated at 80 to 90 meters underground, with a great deal of reinforced concrete to protect it from aerial bombardment. Natanz also has a less well-protected enrichment facility; it was the target of the Stuxnet cyberattack about 15 years ago.

The US operation, called “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved a coordinated assault using B-2 Spirit bombers and a US Navy submarine. According to Pentagon briefings, seven B-2 bombers each carried two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs designed to penetrate up to 200 feet of reinforced earth or concrete. In a 25-minute window, a dozen GBU-57 bombs were dropped on Fordow and two on Natanz. The submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against surface infrastructure targets in Isfahan.

Russian Mobilization Falls Short Ahead of Putin’s Summer Offensive


Following Ukraine’s successful “Operation Spiderweb” strike on Russian airfields on June 1, the Kremlin dropped its pretense of seriously pursuing peace talks, ramping up retaliatory strikes in Kyiv, Odesa, and other cities.

The Kremlin is counting on its summer offensive to achieve Ukrainian capitulation or, at a minimum, favorable conditions for a ceasefire.

Independent investigations into Russian mobilization contradict Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claims that more Russians are willing to fight in Ukraine, as recruitment slowed in the first half of 2025.

Russia continues its barrage of drone strikes on Ukraine. On June 24, Russian forces launched an attack on the city of Dnipro, killing 16 and injuring at least 279 civilians. The strike damaged infrastructure across the city, including educational and medical facilities, administrative buildings, and residences (Ukrainska Pravda, June 24). On the night of June 10, Russia carried out massive strikes on Kyiv and Odesa. In Odesa, the drone struck a maternity hospital, killing at least three people (Ukrinform, June 10). In Kyiv, a drone hit a multi-story building, 

injuring civilians (Nastoyashee Vremya, June 10). Pro-war Russian Telegram channel “Rybar” claimed the Kyiv strike was “the most large-scale” yet, declaring that it damaged the Ukrainian “military-industrial complex” (Telegram/@rybar, June 10). Rybar claimed that the targets “were large industrial enterprises: the Kyiv tank armor plant and workshops of the Artem plant … the Kyiv ship repair plant and other industrial zones in many areas of the city,” as well as infrastructure in Kyiv, Dnipro, and Borispol (Telegram/@rybar, June 10).

Preceding these attacks, on June 1, Ukraine conducted a large-scale strike called “Operation Spiderweb” on Russian air bases. U.S. experts estimated that this drone attack hit up to 20 Russian military aircraft, destroying 10 (Reuters, June 5; Ukrainska Pravda, June 7). Reports indicate that Moscow will likely require years to replace the damaged aircraft, and German military specialists estimate that “Operation Spiderweb” has damaged around 10 percent of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet (Reuters, June 7). In response, the Kremlin threatened retaliatory strikes while continuing its nightly shelling of Ukrainian cities and ramping up its summer offensive in eastern Ukraine (see EDM, June 9).

How Hamas’s Degradation Opened Space for Protests


The March 2025 anti-Hamas protests in Gaza reflected a moment enabled by Hamas’s temporary inability to suppress opposition due to wartime losses. The degradation of its Qassam Brigades, many of whom also serve in internal policing roles, weakened the group’s control over the territory and created an opportunity for public anger over wartime mistreatment to surface.

The protests showcased Hamas’s reliance on coercion and force to maintain power rather than popular legitimacy. The group’s return to targeted repression underscores that future unrest will depend less on public sentiment than on Hamas’s fluctuating capacity to suppress it.

On March 25, thousands of residents across the Gaza Strip took to the streets, demonstrating against Hamas, the Islamist militant group that has governed Gaza since 2007. 

The scale and intensity of the protests were unheard of, with slogans like “Hamas are terrorists” and “Hamas, get out!” echoing from Beit Lahia in the north to Rafah in the south (Asharq al-Awsat, March 27; YouTube/ูˆุงู‚ููŠู† ู…ุน ุฌูŠุดู†ุง, March 29). Notably, the protestors were not necessarily calling for peace or rejecting Hamas’s strategy of “resistance,” understood to mean violent confrontation with Israel, including acts of terrorism. Rather, Gazans rallied to condemn Hamas’s failure to shield the territory’s population from the catastrophic consequences of the war it launched on October 7, 2023.