Feed aggregator

Summary: Going to sea has always been risky, especially for military personnel, where the dangers are compounded. Countless sailors have perished due to these risks, often due to human error or poor planning. Notable incidents include the USS Enterprise striking Bishop Rock in 1985, the Vasa sinking due to design flaws in the 17th century, and a German U-boat's mishap with a high-pressure toilet during WWII. Perhaps the most embarrassing incident was the near-sinking of India's first nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, in 2017 due to a hatch left open, resulting in extensive repairs and a year-long inoperative period.

How Human Error Nearly Sunk a $3 Billion Nuclear Submarine

Going to sea has never been without risks.

For those in military uniform the dangers are compounded, and it has always taken a special breed of men and women willing to head out over the horizon.

Countless sailors have lost their lives due to the dangers of the sea – but in a few cases, it was due to stupid mistakes.

What Happened to This Submarine: Open the Hatch 

This has included collisions and some dozen U.S. Navy ships have been seriously damaged due to such accidents. USS Enterprise (CVN-65) suffered serious damage when she struck a portion of the 13-mile-long Bishop Rock that damaged its hull in November 1985.

Other times it is simply the case of poor planning or design and as a result some vessels barely made it out to sea on their maiden voyages. That was certainly the case with the Vasa, described as the most high-tech warship when it was built in the 17th century. The Swedish warship sank within just twenty minutes of setting sail after a gust of wind capsized the majestic vessel – likely due to the heavy cannons on her gun deck.

Some other naval accidents were the result of "human error" of the most extreme kind. At the end of the Second World War, a German Type VIIC submarine nearly sank on its maiden voyage because the boat's new deepwater high-pressure toilet was used "improperly," reportedly by the captain no less! Sea water flooded the boat's batteries, which caused them to generate chlorine gas, which forced the U-1206 to surface. The crew then scuttled the submarine after it was bombed by British patrols. Three men drowned in the heavy seas.

A Hatch Left Open

Perhaps the most embarrassing mishap in military maritime history is what happened to INS Arihant, India's first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine when it began its deployment in 2017.

The then-brand new $2.9 billion submarine was left completely inoperative for nearly a year simply because a hatch was left open, which allowed seawater to rush in, almost sinking the boat in the process.

The nuclear submarine was the first of an expected five in class, designed and constructed as part of the Indian Navy's Advanced Technology Vessel project. The Arihant was designed with four launch tubes that could carry a dozen K-15 short-range missiles or K-4 intermediate-range nuclear missiles. While the sub's weapons and capabilities were advanced, the training of the crew certainly wasn't.

In addition, the Arihant faced a number of problems during her development and manufacture, and that included delays in its construction and notably major differences between the Russian-supplied design and the indigenous fabrication. Those were all minor of course compared to the damage that occurred from human error.

When the hatch was left open, not only did the propulsion compartments fill with seawater, but there was substantial damage to the pipes that ran through the submarine. Given how corrosive seawater can be to the various pipes, including those that carry pressurized water coolant to and from the ship's eighty-three-megawatt nuclear reactor, all had to be cut out and replaced. The six-thousand-ton INS Arihant remained out of service at the docks while the water was pumped out, and the pipes replaced. The entire process took ten months.

India had attempted to conceal the mishap, without much success. INS Arihant's absence was first noted in the Doklam border standoff with China in the summer of 2017. At the time, the Indian military only confirmed that the submarine had undergone repairs in early 2018. As naval mishaps go the Arihant may have been among the more embarrassing but at least it didn't result in the loss of life.

Despite a rough start, the submarine has reportedly had a largely successful service history.

Author Experience and Expertise

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: On August 12, 2000, two explosions rocked the Barents Sea, leading to the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk during a naval exercise.

-The initial explosion occurred due to a leak of high-test peroxide (HTP) from a practice torpedo, causing a secondary, more massive explosion that doomed the vessel.

-Rescue efforts were delayed, and international assistance was initially rejected. All 118 crew members perished, with 23 surviving temporarily in the submarine's rear compartment.

-The incident was later attributed to inadequate training, poor equipment maintenance, and mismanagement.

Explosions and Cover-ups: The Sinking of the Kursk Submarine

On August 12, 2000, the waters of the Barents Sea were shaken by two explosions. Sailors aboard the Russian submarine Karelia detected the explosions but presumed they were related to a major naval exercise of which the Karelia was a part.

Tragically, however, the detonations had occurred aboard the Oscar-class submarine Kursk, and they spelled disaster for that submarine and its crew. 

Kursk: What happened?

The Kursk was a cruise missile submarine launched in 1994, one of the first ships built by the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Oscar class was designed to rain cruise missiles down on a U.S. carrier strike group and was one of the largest submarines ever, behind only Soviet Typhoon-class and U.S. Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. 

In August of 2000, the Kursk was participating in the Summer-X exercise, the first major fleet maneuver of the Russian Navy. As part of the test, the vessel was to launch a pair of training torpedoes at a Russian cruiser. In addition to these dummy warheads, the Kursk carried a full complement of live ordnance, from torpedoes to cruise missiles.

It was one of the few Russian ships authorized to do so. A few hours after requesting permission to begin the test, the first explosion measuring 1.5 on the Richter scale was detected by Russian naval assets, as well as by a Norwegian seismic monitoring station. Just over two minutes later, a second, much greater explosion was detected — 4.2 on the Richter scale. 

The Rescue Effort

The Kursk was supposed to check in that afternoon following the completion of the test, but senior officers were not overly concerned at first. They suspected a failure of the communication equipment, a common problem aboard the sub.

It wasn’t until nearly five hours later, and after repeated failures to contact the sub, that a search and rescue effort was ordered. 

Two Russian mini-submersibles, the AS-32 and AS-34, headed up the rescue effort.

By the evening of Sunday, August 13, they had located the stricken Kursk on the seabed, 354 feet below the surface. The bow was completely destroyed, and the first four compartments were flooded.

The submersible made repeated attempts to gain a seal over the rear escape hatch but was ultimately unsuccessful. In the following days, the rescue effort was hampered by increasingly strong winds and heavy seas. Additional submersibles were brought in, but they too failed to successfully seal against the escape hatch. Diving bells lowered by ships on the surface encountered the same problem. 

The U.S. and other Western nations were aware of the accident the day that it happened, and a coalition including the UK, France, Germany, Norway, and Israel offered assistance to the Russian Navy.

Russia turned down this assistance as Moscow sought to downplay and obfuscate the nature of the disaster, both from the world at large and from its own citizens. Finally, five days after the accident and in the face of considerable media and public backlash, Russian President Vladimir Putin accepted British and Norwegian help. 

Tragic Conclusion

Initially there was a great deal of hope that some survivors had held out in the relatively undamaged rear of the submarine. As the rescue dragged on, however, hope waned. When a Norwegian dive team finally gained entry to the wreck 10 days after the accident, they only found bodies. 

Once it was determined that none of the crew had survived, Russia moved to salvage the Kursk. A Dutch company was contracted to lift the submarine from its resting place on the seabed. The bow was removed before the sub was lifted, due to concerns over unexploded ordnance and structural instability. It was eventually destroyed where it lay on the seafloor. 

Upon refloating the Kursk, the full nature of the disaster was revealed. There had indeed been survivors — 23 sailors that congregated in the rearmost, ninth compartment. The nuclear reactors powering the sub had gone into emergency shutdown. This was a blessing in that they were inert and stable, but it meant all power, light, and air recycling processes were shut down. 

The men in the ninth compartment managed to survive for a time using battery-powered lights and chemical oxygen scrubbers. Their fate had already been sealed, however, due to where they were and the type of boat they were on. Although 354 feet is deep, the men would have most likely been able to survive an emergency ascent. Being stuck in the icy cold of the Barents Sea, however, would have been a sure death sentence if they were not swiftly spotted and rescued. Furthermore, some personnel were too injured to clamber into the escape trunk and attempt the ascent. 

Once the crew decided to stay aboard, they became victims of a quirk of the Kursk, and indeed of all Oscar-class submarines — an imperfect seal where the propeller shafts exited the hull. When stationary, water leaked in around the shafts. With the sub at rest on the seabed, water continued leaking in, driving up the pressure inside the compartment and making an emergency ascent physiologically impossible. 

With the air scrubbers turned off, the survivors relied on chemical scrubbers to remove poisonous carbon dioxide. Ultimately, it appears one of these scrubbers was dropped as the crew attempted to replace a used cartridge. When it splashed into the oily water, a chemical reaction ignited a flash fire in the pressurized air that burned off all the remaining oxygen, causing the remaining survivors to asphyxiate. 

Cause of the Sinking

With the sub on the surface, investigators were able to determine the cause of the mishap.

The Kursk was using torpedoes propelled by high-test peroxide (HTP). This chemical compound is normally stable, but in the presence of a catalyst it becomes a highly potent oxidizer. It appears the practice torpedo in use leaked enough of this fuel when it was loaded into the tube to cause the first explosion.

The forces of the initial explosion tore through the torpedo compartment, burning at temperatures estimated at nearly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Such monumental pressure and temperature caused at least seven other torpedoes to detonate, producing the second explosion. Water swiftly rushed into the ruined bow of the submarine, tearing through bulkheads until it was stopped by reinforced bulkhead number five, which protected the nuclear reactors. 

Aftermath/Coverup

The Russian state sought to spin and cover up the botched rescue that might have saved the trapped sailors. Attempts were made to deflect blame by stating the mishap was caused by a collision with a NATO submarine that was monitoring the exercise. It was noted that the sub’s rescue beacon, designed to automatically float to the surface in the event of disaster to aid in location, had been disabled prior to a deployment to the Mediterranean the year before. 

Review of documentation aboard the Kursk revealed that the crew had not been adequately trained to handle HTP torpedoes, or indeed the specific type of torpedo loaded. A secret report found “stunning breaches of discipline, shoddy, obsolete and poorly maintained equipment" and "negligence, incompetence, and mismanagement." It went on to criticize delays in initiating the rescue operation.

Ultimately, apart from some shake-ups in Putin’s cabinet, few were held to account for the tragic loss of the Kursk and all 118 sailors aboard. 

About the Author: Maya Carlin

Maya Carlin is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Les présidents français et ukrainien signeront vendredi deux accords avec à la clé 650 millions d'euros sous formes de prêts et de dons à l'Ukraine pour soutenir notamment les collectivités locales et les infrastructures critiques, en particulier énergétiques, visées par la Russie, a annoncé mercredi l'Élysée.

Summary: The development of fighter jets has progressed through five generations, starting with the Messerschmitt Me 262 in 1943. Each generation has introduced significant technological advancements, such as transonic speeds, multi-role capabilities, advanced avionics, and stealth technology. Today, fifth-generation jets like the F-22 and F-35 dominate, while sixth-generation fighters are on the horizon, likely featuring unmanned options and advanced connectivity. Future generations like a 7th generation fighter may shift towards fully autonomous drones, potentially making the traditional manned fighter jet a relic of the past.

7th Generation Fighter: Could They Happen? 

Will there ever be a seventh-generation fighter jet?

It’s hard to say right now, given no one has created a  sixth-generation fighter jet.

But as drone technology and artificial intelligence progress, we do seem to be approaching a watershed – some moment that changes the predictable trajectory of aerospace development.

Fighter Jets: What Came Before

Before considering what comes next, let’s consider how we got to where we are – with the fifth generation of fighter jet aircraft in the skies, and on the verge of welcoming the sixth. 

Jet aircraft generations are not perfectly delineated, and there is some debate over where the lines sit. But generally, there is an understanding that fighter jet technology has progressed gradually through five generations, beginning in 1943 with the introduction of the first ever fighter jet, Nazi Germany's Messerschmitt Me 262.

First-generation jet aircraft were simple machines, not unlike the piston aircraft that came immediately before. Most first-generation aircraft had straight wings. All flew at subsonic speeds and carried conventional armaments. Examples include the DH Vampire and P-80 Shooting Star.

The second generation is generally understood as beginning in 1953 with the introduction of transonic/supersonic abilities, air-to-air missiles, and radar. Second-generation types include the F-86 and MiG-15, which dominated the skies during the Korean War.

Where the third generation begins is debatable, but it is often pegged to the introduction of multi-purpose fighter-bombers in the 1960s. Examples include the F-4 Phantom, MiG-23, and Mirage F1. Third-generation jet aircraft enjoyed a heyday during the Vietnam War era.

Fourth-generation fighters are in many respects still relevant today. This generation introduces advanced avionics, modern weaponry, and high maneuverability. Examples include the F-14, F-15, F-16, MiG-29, and Mirage 2000, all of them developed between 1974 and 1990.

Most pundits (and aerospace manufacturers) describe a fourth generation-plus – airframes that are a touch too advanced to be fourth-generation, but are not quite fifth-generation. Fourth-generation-plus aircraft were typically designed in the 1980s and 1990s and include types like the F/A-18, Su-30, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and MiG-35.

Then comes the fifth generation, introduced in the 21st century and featuring stealth technology, supercruise, thrust vectoring, and cutting-edge avionics. The generation includes, to-date, just four airframes: the F-22, F-35, Su-57, and J-20. Today, fifth-generation aircraft are the most advanced fighter jets in service anywhere. But aerospace developers in North America, Europe, and Asia are already working to develop a sixth-generation platform.

Future Generations of Fighter Jets: Ehter a 7th Generation Fighter 

In all likelihood, someone will develop a sixth-generation fighter in the near to middle future. What exactly the sixth generation will include is not yet clear, but will of course be more advanced than the fifth generation, likely with an unmanned option, data fusion, and network interconnectivity.

Will there be a seventh generation? Hard to say. Any next generation likely won’t emerge for another 30 or 40 years, at which point fighter jets as we know them may mostly be a thing of the past. Drones and artificial intelligence are progressing at a rate where the flesh-and-blood pilot is likely to be replaced partially or entirely in the next decade or so. If there is a seventh generation, it might not include human operators.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Yesterday, India concluded its six-week, drawn-out parliamentary elections. As always, the country did not fail to surprise the global community. The conventional wisdom was that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would win in a landslide, and the exit polls appeared to confirm that his coalition would gain between 355 and 380 seats in the Lok Sabha (India’s lower house of parliament) of 543 seats. 

As in other countries, the exit polls were wrong, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies won 291 seats—enough to form a government but a far cry from the 400 seats that the party bragged it would win. The general consensus was that with a sweeping majority, the Modi government would take drastic steps to reshape Indian society along ideological lines. Instead, the electorate voted for a more pluralistic parliament. Why did this happen, and what are the implications for Indian democracy?

Modi based his electoral strategy on seeking to accelerate development and appeal to the Hindu cultural agenda. The first did not deliver the goods, and the second did not sway voters who were not already committed. Instead, the appeal to Hinduism not only alienated the Muslim vote—in a country of over 200 million Muslims—it led minority voters to mobilize effectively against the ruling party. On the economic front, large-scale inflation, especially for foodstuffs, hit the pocketbooks of the average Indian, causing disillusionment with the government’s policies. Further, the tendency to use the state to intimidate the opposition, the media, and think tanks did not resonate well with the general public or the intelligentsia and gave the opposition the incentive to organize and coordinate successfully. 

Yet, these factors do not fully explain the results. The BJP made inroads into the states where it was not expected to make an impact, although some of this stems from the anti-incumbent tendency in Indian politics. What India has ended up with is the BJP as the largest party in parliament, with 140 seats more than its nearest rival. It will, therefore, form the next government in coalition with allied parties.

In part, this is because the opposition, while tapping into the resentment against the BJP’s policies, did not provide a clear agenda of its own. In the past, the opposition coalitions have won only to squabble and break up in government. The Indian electorate, which wants good governance above all, grows weary of such ham-handed efforts to grab power. Further, the opposition wants to wean away parties from Modi’s National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition to gain a majority and form its own government. Still, the prime minister’s allies, for now, are standing firmly with the current government. They, too, know of the ineptness of the opposition to form and maintain governments. Does this mean, however, as some commentators are now suggesting, that Modi’s power is on the wane? The answer is that it depends. 

If the BJP learns from its disappointing electoral performance, then it will focus on internal reform and strengthen its economic platform. Internal reform means tolerating an opposition and allowing it to provide healthy dissent. This would restore confidence in the Indian political system, both domestically and internationally. It also makes Modi look like a resilient and confident leader who can listen to criticism and learn from it. 

Reform also means toning down the Hindutva rhetoric, which has made both minorities and the average Indian uncomfortable with the majoritarian direction the republic is headed. The government banked heavily on lavish spending to build a temple in the city of Ayodhya, which is the birthplace of the god Ram. Movie stars, athletes, and a who’s who of Indian celebrities attended the inauguration of the temple, which was built on a razed mosque, and the event was seen as significantly boosting the BJP’s electoral chances as the defenders of Hinduism. Instead, the BJP candidate from Ayodhya lost the race for parliament. Religious appeals obviously have their limits, and they cannot smooth over pressing economic concerns. 

This is where, however, Modi can succeed if he is able to accelerate growth in an already hot economy. The government’s emphasis has long been on building highways, airports, and other critical transportation infrastructure. There, its record is impressive. Where it has lagged behind, as Ashoka Mody has persuasively written, is in job creation despite high GDP growth. Yet, jobs are the top concern for the majority of the population that is under the age of thirty. 

The Indian electorate also likes Modi’s foreign policy because it is seen as muscular and gaining respect on the international stage. Indians approved of the 2019 decision to carry out a punitive strike on Pakistan following a terror attack in India that killed forty military personnel (Modi blamed the attack on Islamabad), and this most probably was the catalyst to win the 2019 election handily. Although the attack on a facility in Pakistan met with large-scale approval, it was muted somewhat by the shooting down of an Indian fighter jet in the skirmish that followed. 

More worrying, perhaps, is the simmering border dispute with China. Over the past few years, there have been three confrontations between Indian and Chinese soldiers, leading in one case, Galwan, to the confirmed death of twenty Indian soldiers and an unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers as well. The Indian media and parts of the Indian military have been pushing for a more assertive policy towards China by displaying the country’s military muscle. A full-blown war between the two countries would stymie Indian developmental efforts. If the conflict did not end in a manner that satisfied the Indian public, it would lead to large-scale protests against the Modi government. 

Modi, however, has been careful not to get into a war of words with the Chinese and has pursued a less provocative strategy. Instead, he has sought to quietly build up Indian infrastructure along the border so as to allow for the better deployment of Indian troops to counter Chinese incursions. He is also engaging in a general buildup of the Indian armed forces, but even this is limited by the Indian public’s demand to prioritize development over defense. 

Those writing Modi’s political obituary are premature. His party has the largest number of seats in parliament, and opportunistic members of the opposition are prone to switching sides for personal and political gain in India. He could, therefore, gain more members for his alliance. However, the key question is whether the Modi government can learn from its mistakes. If it does, the party can emerge stronger since it has the discipline and drive to function as a coherent and effective political unit. Modi would emerge as a leader who has the sagacity to learn and reform. If, however, the next term becomes a game of political tit-for-tat, then his coalition members may seek greener pastures. 

Amit Gupta is a Senior Fellow of the National Institute of Deterrence Studies. The views in this article are his own.

Image: Exposure Visuals / Shutterstock.com

Correction: An initial version of this article stated that the BJP won 100 more seats than the Indian National Congress (INC). The exact difference is 140 seats. The National Interest apologizes for this oversight. 

Le Parquet national anti-terroriste a annoncé, mercredi, avoir ouvert une enquête, deux jours après l'arrestation, à Roissy-en-France, en banlieue parisienne, d'un homme de nationalité russo-ukrainienne, âgé de 26 ans, dans un hôtel du Val-d'Oise, alors qu'il confectionnait des engins explosifs. Le suspect est actuellement en garde à vue.

Summary: A video posted on X falsely claims to show the likely destruction of the U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower by the Houthis.

-Experts have confirmed the video is fake, likely created with CGI.

-Despite its inauthenticity, the video highlights several important issues: the impact of deep fake technology on national security, the vulnerability of aircraft carriers in modern warfare, and the resentment towards the American military presence abroad.

A Fake Attack on a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

X user @JTMprincenews has posted a video purporting to show the destruction of the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier.

“In this video, we can see how USS Dwight Eisenhower is being blown off by the Houthis,” the caption reads. “Home to 60 fighter jets wit a crew of 5000 staffs & Navy personnel. Aerodrome of death, with sole purpose of bring USA’ madness around the world. Its fate is [similar] for others.”

The National Interest has consulted with multiple experts, and each confirmed that the video is a fake. Not that we really needed to consult the experts – the video looks like it was made as a high-school CGI project. 

Nevertheless, the video raises a few worthwhile talking points. First is the ramifications of deep-fake videos on national security. Second is the survivability of aircraft carriers in future combat. And third is the resentment that American military presence abroad still engenders, especially in the Arab world. 

Deep Fakes   

The rise of deep fakes – of AI-manufactured videography and photography – will surely complicate national security. Discerning what is real from what is fake has long been a challenge of intelligence-gathering. But as the ability to generate increasingly authentic-looking content increases with the rise of AI-assisted video-generation programs, the challenge of discerning what is real will only grow.

Videos claiming the outright destruction of an aircraft carrier will always be relatively easy to confirm or deny, since you can pick up the phone and call the boat in question (though such videos do have the potential to exacerbate the fog of war). More subtle videos with more subtle national security implications will be harder to discern. The location of a human target, for example, or correspondence between two human targets. The problem is beginning to manifest itself on the civilian side, with AI-assisted videos being used as leverage in blackmail schemes and the like. Expect similar schemes to crop up in the national security realm.

Sitting Duck: Aircraft Carriers Could Be Targets in Real Life - and Take on Damage 

The video is fake, but it plays on a legitimate fear: that a U.S. supercarrier could be sunk. The survivability of the aircraft carrier, and indeed of all surface vessels, has been called into question lately. The rise of anti-ship technology has improved. Drones and missiles in operation can plausibly interfere with the operation of an aircraft carrier. 

The success of the low-tech Houthis in disrupting the operations of U.S. warships in the region has raised questions about how those warships might fare in a conflict against a more sophisticated opponent such as China. So while the video in question here is fake, the premise is concerning and on the minds of war planners.  

Breeding Resentment

The posting of the video emphasizes how much of the world’s population does not appreciate the U.S. presence abroad. The U.S. has strategic interests that in some cases require a U.S. presence abroad – but at a certain point, the U.S. presence begins to run counter to U.S. interests. Where exactly that tipping point lies is very situation-specific. But Americans should not grown complacent to, or dismissive of, the fact that significant portions of the international community believe a ship flying the Stars and Stripes is an “aerodomes of death” for the “sole purpose to bring USA madness around the world.” 

The U.S. must take better care to assert itself in situations and places that benefit American interests. And if for no other reason than our own callous self-interest, Americans must be more mindful of the resentment they can sow abroad. 

Note: As the video might be disturbing, we have not embedded it. You can watch it on X here. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Main image is a screenshot from X. All others are Creative Commons. 

When they look across the Middle East and beyond, Iran and its terrorist minions in the “axis of resistance” must be happy with what they see – a global community that not only refuses to confront their aggression but actually rewards it, laying the groundwork for more war down the road.

For starters, the United States, NATO, and senior European Union officials all expressed their condolences on the recent deaths in a helicopter crash of President Ebrahim Raisi and other top Iranian officials.

Such diplomatic niceties are appropriate at times, but Raisi was a close ally of the virulently anti-Western Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; he was known as the “Butcher of Tehran” for his “role” in the deaths of thousands of political prisoners in 1988; and he directed the brutal crackdowns of public protests in recent years in which hundreds were killed and more than 20,000 were detained.

While the condolences must have delighted the mullahs in Tehran, they outraged human rights activists within Iran who oppose the authoritarian regime and have been the targets of its ire.

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported last week that Tehran is enriching more uranium to near weapons-grade purity – enabling it to make enough weapons-grade uranium for almost eight nuclear weapons in a month – and that Tehran continues to thwart the IAEA’s efforts to monitor all its nuclear activities.

Nevertheless, Washington reportedly is pressing its European allies not to censure Tehran at the IAEA’s next board meeting in early June, out of fears that a censure could further raise Western tensions with the Islamic Republic and give Tehran a “pretext” to further expand its nuclear activities.

The world also is rewarding the terrorists Tehran sponsors, funds, and equips for their aggression of late.

Spain, Norway, and Ireland in recent days “formally recognized” a new Palestinian state that would include the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem in hopes of bringing peace to, or imposing it on, Israel and the Palestinians. In addition, Algeria proposed a draft UN Security Council resolution to demand, among other things, that Israel “immediately halt its military offensive” in Rafah.

Such moves can only encourage Hamas, which slaughtered 1,200 Israelis in barbaric fashion on October 7, to continue its efforts, as outlined in its charter and reiterated in the public comments of its leaders, to destroy Israel and create a Palestine “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

While Hamas has resumed its rocket attacks from Gaza in recent days, Hezbollah continues the rocket barrage from southern Lebanon that it began on October 8 in solidarity with its “axis of resistance” partner.

Lest he needed further encouragement, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah boasted that the International Criminal Court’s decision to seek arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was the outgrowth of all different kinds of global pressure on Israel.

None of this bodes well for a peaceful future for the region, no matter how long Israel’s war with Hamas continues.

Buoyed by Western divisions over Tehran and global condemnations of Israel, Iranian officials are mapping out plans to escalate short-term attacks on the Jewish state while developing a strategy to destroy it over the long term.

For the short term, Iranian officials met in Tehran with members of its “axis of resistance” and directed that Hamas harden its stance in negotiations with Israel over the hostages and a ceasefire, ambush Israel’s forces and abduct its soldiers, and conduct military operations throughout Gaza.

It also directed Hezbollah to use long-range precision missiles and Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles to bring down Israeli planes. Hezbollah would be using such missiles for the first time in its battles with Israel, and it hopes to “stun” Jerusalem and the world with its ability to down Israeli aircraft.

For the long term, Iranian officials are “drawing lessons” from the current war, which they believe has revealed “Israeli vulnerabilities,” to develop a strategy to destroy its arch enemy once and for all.

Convinced that they and their proxies are winning the current war, Iran’s leaders are “examining ways to use proxy forces and terror to destabilize the Israeli state and Israeli society” – that is, to destroy Israel without having to defeat the Israeli Defense Forces and without triggering a war that could “draw in the United States.”

Those in Washington, in Europe, at the United Nations, and elsewhere who are appeasing Tehran, pressuring Jerusalem, and recognizing a Palestinian state may believe that’s the path to more peace and stability. But, in fact, they’re encouraging Tehran’s nuclear and hegemonic ambitions, as well as genocidal intentions against the Jewish state, which it shares with its terrorist proxies.

Only a serious U.S., Western, and global change in direction will ease the momentum for greater conflict in the coming months.

About the Author

Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and the author of, most recently, The Kennedys in the World: How Jack, Bobby, and Ted Remade America’s Empire (Potomac Books).

Image Credit: CSIS/Creative Commons. 

Summary: Israel remains the sole Middle Eastern operator of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter. With 36 of 50 ordered jets already delivered, Israel recently signed a deal for an additional 25, bringing the total to 75 within the next decade.

-The $3 billion deal, financed by U.S. military aid, will see deliveries starting in 2028. Israel's F-35I "Adir" variant includes customized electronic warfare systems, tailored helmets, and enhanced data processing capabilities.

-The Israeli Air Force operates three F-35 squadrons from Nevatim Air Base and has employed the aircraft in combat, notably against Iranian targets in Syria and drones.

Israel Expands F-35I Adir Fleet with $3 Billion Deal for Additional Stealth Fighters

The State of Israel remains the sole operator of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter in the Middle East. Currently, 36 of the original 50 ordered by the Jewish state have been delivered, but the total force could grow to as many as 75 within the next decade, as Israel signed a deal on Tuesday for an additional 25 of the fifth-generation fighters – to be delivered at a rate of three to five annually beginning in 2028.

The deal, financed by U.S. foreign military aid, totals approximately $3 billion.

As noted by Lockheed Martin, the aircraft's prime contractor, "Israel became the first country to select the F-35 through the United States government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process when a Letter of Agreement was signed in October 2010."

On June 22, 2016, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) received its first F-35A at a ceremony at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas facilities, and the following year the fifth-generation multirole stealth fighter was declared operational.

The Mighty One – Meet the F-35I

Though an "early adopter" of the F-35, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) expressed concerns that the aircraft's stealth capabilities could be partly overcome within a decade despite the 30 to 40-year service life. To address that very serious issue, Israel sought to utilize its own electronic warfare system (EWS). Initially, the U.S. refused to allow such changes over security concerns.

However, it eventually agreed to allow Israel to integrate its own EWS, including sensors and countermeasures, on top of the U.S. systems. Additional changes included a special, IAF-tailored helmet-mounted display, and bespoke datalink functionality that is specific to the IDF, while other enhancements further improved the F-35's already-potent data gathering and processing capabilities.

All of those new enhancements to the stealth aircraft were also significant enough to warrant an 'I' designation, making the F-35I one of just a handful of formally acknowledged F-35 variants. The Israeli Air Force gave the F-35I the name Adir, meaning "Mighty One" in Hebrew.

The IAF operates three F-35 squadrons out of Nevatim Air Base, located southeast of Be'er Sheva, near Moshav Nevatim. These include the 116 Squadron, "Lions of the South," which became the first to transition to the fifth-generation fighter; the 117 Squadron, "First Jet," which operates as an F-35I training squadron; and the 140th Squadron, also known as the "Golden Eagle Squadron," which was reactivated specifically in 2015 to receive the Adir.

In addition to being the first foreign nation to adopt the F-35, Israel has the distinction of seeing the aircraft employed in combat. On May 22, 2018, Israeli Air Force commander, Major General Amikam Norkin, reported that the F-35s were used to strike Iranian missile launch sites in Syria. In April 2022, an Israel F-35 also shot down a pair of Iranian drones for the first time.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

Eurozone finance ministers gave their political backing on Wednesday (5 May) to a G7 plan to provide loans to Ukraine by using windfall profits generated from Russian assets, which they are ready to discuss after a G7 leaders' summit later in June.

Summary: The conviction of Donald Trump in New York on 34 misdemeanors, elevated to felonies, has sparked significant controversy.

-Critics argue that the trial was marred by legal irregularities, a biased judge, and political motivations, comparing it to Soviet show trials.

-The case involved allegations of paperwork errors related to campaign finance, yet the indictment did not specify the exact laws violated.

-The jury's quick verdict and the judge's refusal to allow expert testimony on federal campaign finance law have further fueled claims of injustice.

-This case has raised concerns about the impartiality of the American justice system, likening it to those in third-world countries.

Outrage Over Donald Trump's Conviction: A Flawed Trial?

It’s hard to adequately describe what happened to Donald Trump in Venezuela-on-the-Hudson. Outrageous? A travesty of justice? A devasting blow to the sanctity of our justice system and its reputation for fairness and nonpartisanship? An American repetition of the Soviet show trials of the 1930s?

It’s all of those things. And you don’t have to be a Trump supporter to understand that.

A former president was convicted of 34 misdemeanors for paperwork errors (whose statute of limitations had run out) that were changed to felonies because he had supposedly violated another state law – nowhere mentioned in the indictment – that makes it a crime to use “unlawful” means to promote or oppose the election of a candidate.

And what was that “unlawful” means? Well, the defendant didn’t know because those other “unlawful” means (i.e., other crimes) weren’t mentioned in the indictment either. The judge told the jurors that they didn’t need to even agree on what other crimes the defendant had committed, seemingly in conflict with hundreds of years of English and American jurisprudence, including the Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law.

No, said the judge, the jury could consider violations of tax law or a violation of federal campaign finance law or of some other unnamed law for listing as a legal expense – instead of as a campaign expense – a settlement payment made to an individual who was represented by counsel in a perfectly legitimate, and perfectly legal, transaction. But no need for a unanimous decision on that issue.

A violation of federal campaign finance law? What were a local prosecutor and a state court judge doing bringing up a violation of federal law over which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever? And if that was something the members of the jury—who know nothing about federal campaign finance law—could consider, why did the judge tell the defendant he would not allow Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commissioner and one of the nation’s leading experts on federal campaign finance law, to explain to the jury what is considered – and what is not considered – a campaign-related expense under federal law?

The judge acted as if he was a member of the prosecution team throughout this case, a case so lacking in merit that the prior district attorney—the one who preceded the Soros-supported rogue prosecutor Alvin Bragg—refused to file it. Judge Juan Merchan consistently ruled against Trump and allowed the prosecution to essentially do whatever it wanted, including admitting evidence and allowing testimony to matters that were completely irrelevant to the actual charges and whose only purpose was to confuse the jury and blacken the character of the defendant.

Judge Merchan committed the same sorts of error that recently prompted the New York Court of Appeals in People v Weinstein to throw out Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction. How so? Because the trial judge in that case abused his discretion by admitting irrelevant testimony and evidence that was comprised of, as the appeals court said, “untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”

Moreover, Judge Merchan should never have presided over this case in the first place, just like this prosecution should never have been brought in the first place. Merchan should have recused himself from handling it from the very beginning. In addition to the fact that he donated money to the Biden campaign as well as to a group called “Stop Republicans,” his daughter is a Democratic political consultant who worked for the Biden-Harris campaign and whose clients have been raising money off of this kangaroo court trial.

After a six-week trial, the jury took less than two days to find Trump guilty of 34 felony charges. This hardly seems like enough time to take a hard, objective look at the lack of evidence produced by the prosecution that an actual crime had been committed. This suggests that political bias and animus towards the defendant for reasons unconnected to the case may have been a decisive, if not the decisive, factor during their hasty deliberations.

This is especially so since the only people who could provide any insight into what Trump did and what he knew with respect to the alleged offenses were Allen Weisselberg—the Trump Organization’s CFO whom the prosecution did not call as a witness—and Michael Cohen—who lied under oath on innumerable prior occasions, admitted that he hates Donald Trump, blames Trump for everything that has gone wrong in his life, stole from Trump, recorded their conversations in violation of the attorney-client privilege, and said he would profit handsomely if Trump is convicted.

When the defense teams files its appeals brief, it will probably have to be the size of the novel, “War and Peace,” to list all of the legal errors and fallacies committed by the judge and the prosecution. The Appeals Court of New York should follow the example of the U.S. Supreme Court. When Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal with that court over Colorado’s unconstitutional action in disqualifying Trump from the ballot, the court acted with unprecedented speed to put the matter on an expedited schedule in order to get a decision out as soon as possible.

The New York courts have a duty and responsibility to do the same thing. I don’t have a lot of faith in those courts, many of whose judges, as we have seen in this case and the meritless civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, seem infected with partisan politics influencing what they do.

One final point about all of this. One of my colleagues just got back from an international conference that had representatives from all over the world, including many third-world countries. Their reaction to these prosecutions of the former president was that the United States has finally joined the ranks of their home countries where their governments use the judicial system to go after their political opponents.

It is a said day for America and a justice system that was, until now, much admired and copied around the world.

About the Author: 

Hans von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and lawyer at the U.S. Justice Department.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Dans la nuit du 5 au 6 juin 1944, l’opération Overlord débutait non pas en Normandie, mais en Bretagne. Pour commémorer le 80ème anniversaire du Débarquement, le président Emmanuel Macron s’est rendu dans le Morbihan où il a rendu hommage aux parachutistes de la France libre et aux résistants bretons. Une histoire méconnue enfin mise en lumière.

Now, almost eighty years ago, over 23,000 airborne troops landed in Nazi-occupied France with 132,450 Allied forces crossing the channel via sea; 6,833 vessels—including 1,213 warships—took part with over 14,000 sorties flown during the previous evening and D-Day itself; five beach areas were devised, with the First U.S. Army landing on two and the Second British Army landing on the other three. By the end of August, over 2 million men, 3 million tons of supplies and stores, and almost half a million vehicles had landed in Normandy. 

But what led up to this moment was multiple years in the making. After the Dunkirk evacuation and the subsequent fall of France, Great Britain and its empire gallantly continued a lonely, year-long struggle as the only major power fighting German Nazism and Italian Fascism—until the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Although no clear victory was in sight, and with the Britannic world overstretched—battling over the air of Western Europe, on land in North Africa, and at sea in the Atlantic and Mediterranean—Prime Minister Winston Churchill had always planned for a later liberation of Western Europe.

In fact, after the United States’ direct entry into the war, following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill crossed the Atlantic Ocean to meet with President Franklin Roosevelt for the Arcadia Conference. Arcadia set in motion the strategic and operational process that would eventually culminate in D-Day. It reaffirmed the position taken earlier in 1941 by British and American planners: should the United States enter the war, the first primary objective would be to defeat Germany.

That December, during the Arcadia Conference, Churchill presented the American Joint Chiefs of Staff with his general strategic concept to defeat Germany—agreed upon by the British Chiefs. It simplified as five key points: enact naval blockades against the Axis; heavy bombing campaigns against Germany; propaganda designed to incite rebellion in occupied countries and break German morale; a series of peripheral landings across the European coastline by small armored units; and then the “final assault on the German citadel.”

Such a plan clearly drew upon British history. In the words of American rear-admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, “They remembered they had got at Napoleon by the back door of the Iberian Peninsula, and that direct-attack strategy in World War I had cost them a million men killed and two million wounded.”

The Americans didn’t view such a plan favorably. While they agreed that such actions would weaken Germany, what was really needed was one powerful and major operation, meeting the Germans head-on. Many within the U.S. government were eager to open a second front as soon as possible.

However, psychologically, the British were met with two problems: first, the memory of the static warfare from the Great War. The fear of such a repeat was common among many in the upper echelons of British war planning. Secondly, Britain had already been kicked off the European continent three times by this point: in Norway, during the Fall of France—notably at Dunkirk—and in Greece.

Such psychology remained an essential part of the developments leading up to D-Day.

1942 saw grand movements in military decision-making. On March 27, 1942, Roosevelt was presented with a plan drafted as the Marshall Memorandum after Chief of Staff General George Marshall. Subsequently approved by the president on April 1, it was immediately sent across the Atlantic with Marshall and Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins.

The plan outlined three operational phases: First, prepare for the invasion. Logistically, this was already in motion with Operation Bolero—the Combined Allied Chiefs of Staff planning for the transportation and supply of American forces and materiel into the UK. Part of the document’s preparatory measures included Operation Sledgehammer, an emergency cross-channel invasion of the Cotentin Peninsula to take pressure off the Soviet Union if it faced imminent collapse. 

The second phase was a cross-channel invasion codenamed “Roundup.” The final stage was the advance into Germany after consolidating the beachhead in France.

The British wholly rejected Sledgehammer as the Americans could have only provided “token forces” for such an operation at the time. Nonetheless, the Western Allies kept it “on the books” to satisfy Soviet demands for a second front.

Churchill instead argued for an invasion of North Africa in 1942, an idea with which Roosevelt agreed. This provided the U.S. forces with a direct opportunity to fight the Germans and Italians while securing Britain’s need for victory in Africa.

General Marshall, having failed to convince the British on Sledgehammer, agreed to the North African alternative—though he would later admit that his thoughts on the success of Sledgehammer were premature, especially given that D-Day required Allied mastery of the air, something that was lacking in 1942.

In June 1942, General Marshal was eager and fixated on Bolero. Logistics for Bolero remained an ever-present concern—and although America was eager to press onto the continent, it had caused some disagreements within Washington. This is perhaps best explained by Chief of the Imperial General Staff Alan Brooke, who relayed the dissensions he witnessed with the Combined Chiefs of Staff back to Westminster. Written in the confidential annex of a War Cabinet meeting:

Other very high quarters in Washington were, however, apprehensive that if we concentrated on BOLERO to the exclusion of any other projects, either in 1942 or 1943, there was a danger that, if BOLERO was not practicable, large bodies of American troops would be locked up in Great Britain and remain indefinitely inactive.

Logistics would continue to compound problems. By November 1942, Bolero’s slowdown sent a somber message. As General Eisenhower told Churchill, they could not attempt any feasible and meaningful cross-channel invasion until 1944. 

At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, the Allies reaffirmed their commitment to a cross-channel invasion and, as such, to establish a joint Anglo-American planning staff in London.

Subsequently, the Washington Conference in May 1943, codenamed Trident, enacted the necessary compromise for D-Day. The British agreed to commit to a target date of May 1, 1944, for a cross-channel invasion. The Americans, in turn, agreed that such operations were best left until after the conquest of Sicily, continuing the commitments in the Mediterranean.

The Quebec Conference in August 1943 provided the next required stepping stone for D-Day: an American Allied Supreme Commander. Churchill had initially promised Brooke the position of supreme commander. Still, given the increasing number of American units likely involved in a cross-channel landing, it became imperative that a U.S. officer held the position. Thus, on December 7, 1943, Roosevelt met with Eisenhower and told him, “Well, Ike, you are going to command OVERLORD”—the codename for the future battle to come.

The lead-up to D-Day was complex and changing. The Germans were aware of an impending invasion based on their many intelligence reports and successfully tapping a telephone conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in February 1944. Though unaware of this tap, the Allies nonetheless had a plan to deceive the Germans over the location of the invasion: Operation Fortitude South.

It ultimately fed and nurtured the Nazi preconception that the main Allied invasion was to be at the Pas-de-Calais, partly as it seemed the most logical military. Hence, General Bradley referred to it as “the biggest hoax of the war.” The perceived threat of an invasion of the Pas-de-Calais proved invaluable to the Allied cause. Best described by Eisenhower in his later report sent to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force:

The German Fifteenth Army, which, if committed to battle in June or July, might possibly have defeated us by sheer weight of numbers, remained inoperative during the critical period of the campaign, and only when the breakthrough had been achieved were its infantry divisions brought west across the Seine-too late to have any effect upon the course of victory.

From February to April 1944, the Fifteenth Army, north of the Seine, increased from ten to fifteen divisions. However, Nazi “intuition” on the dangers of an undefended Normandy led them to enact multiple division changes. The result was that in addition to their twelve SS Panzer Divisions stationed at Lisieux, three Panzer Divisions (between the Seine and Loire rivers) that could quickly respond to defend Normandy were brought.

Originally scheduled for May, D-Day was delayed a month to procure more LSTs (Landing Ships for Tanks). This was imperative as, in the early hours of April 28, 1944, eight American LSTs were conducting invasion drills off the English coast by Lyme Bay. Intercepted by German torpedoes, two were destroyed, and two were damaged—one beyond repair. The margins for available LSTs were so thin that the loss of three of them threatened the entire viability of D-Day.

The weather affected two principal parts of the operation: D-Day itself, the day the invasion was to take place, and the H-Hour—the hour the Allied assault craft needed to ‘touch down’ onto the beaches. Intended for June 5, Eisenhower again delayed the invasion by a day, but this time due to poor weather. 

As General Lord Ismay explained in his memoirs, airborne troops needed darkness “to conceal their approach, but sufficient moonlight to enable them to identify their dropping zones”—in other words, a late-rising moon. But there needed to be enough time after dawn to allow “the sea-borne assault to identify their beaches, and the warships to identify the target for bombardment” while not being long enough “to enable the enemy to recover from his surprise before the infantry assault started.” Furthermore, the tide had to be low enough “for the underwater obstacles to be exposed, but not so low as to involve the attacking troops in an unduly long advance across the beaches.” The Defence Committee assumed that the opening window for such particular weather in June would be between June 5 and 7. 

At 4:00 AM on June 5, Eisenhower’s command team met to discuss final preparations. The staff meteorologist, Captain Stagg, informed them that the weather was likely to improve the next day. Eisenhower then responded, “OK. We’ll go.”

Thus, all was set into motion. The following day, the largest land, sea, and air invasion in history commenced.

About the Author 

Andreas Koureas is an aspiring economist and historian. He is currently studying Political Economy at King’s College London. His main research focus is on Winston Churchill and the British Empire. He has written for publications such as The Spectator and academic institutions like Hillsdale College. He is writing a paper on the 1943 Bengal Famine for a peer-reviewed journal later this year. Follow him on X: @AndreasKoureas_.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

The EU institutions are playing their part in defending the European elections on 6-9 June against disinformation and information manipulation targeting European democracy.

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

The EU institutions are playing their part in defending the European elections on 6-9 June against disinformation and information manipulation targeting European democracy.

Source : © European Union, 2024 - EP

DÉCRYPTAGE - D’après une note de l'Institut des politiques publiques, les eurodéputés font un usage toujours plus important d’un vocabulaire chargé d’émotion, l’apanage traditionnel des partis populistes.

The EU invited on Wednesday (5 June) Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz to attend an 'ad-hoc' EU-Israel Association Council to discuss the country's compliance with its human rights obligations under the deal.

Emmanuel Macron a entamé, mercredi, les commémorations du 80e anniversaire du Débarquement en Normandie, en accueillant les derniers vétérans de l'opération Overlord. Lors d'un discours, le président français a tissé un parallèle entre les valeurs des anciennes et des nouvelles générations.

Germany's Bundeswehr urgently needs to prepare for potential Russian attacks with a new form of conscription, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius warned on Wednesday (5 June) and doubled down on his opposition to sending ground troops to Ukraine.