Diplomacy & Crisis News

As Russia and China back President Nicolás Maduro, Western powers urge the leader to step aside.

On June 28, Iranians went to the polls to vote in a snap election to determine who would succeed former President Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash on May 19 while returning from a diplomatic visit to Azerbaijan. In the aftermath of the crash, Vice President Mohammed Mokhber assumed interim powers until elections could be held. Six candidates were eventually approved by the country’s Guardian Council, which is responsible for supervising elections and approving candidates for national and regional elections. Five candidates were hardliners, and one was a reformist, Masoud Pezeshkian. In the first round of voting, neither side won a majority, leading to a runoff. Pezeshkian won by a significant margin. 

While ultimate decisionmaking power lies with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the president oversees the government’s day-to-day affairs and can influence domestic and foreign policy. As such, Pezeshkian’s victory could signify the potential for gradual, limited, but still significant reforms within Iran.

Before his presidency, Raisi rose through the ranks of Iran’s theocracy to become the country’s chief justice and was seen as the leading favorite to succeed Khamenei. However, this was not guaranteed due to the country’s opaque politics. Raisi’s ability to cultivate good relations with all branches of government—the legislature, military, and clergy—made him a powerful figure. His total alignment with the establishment allowed him to act as an “effective executor, rather than a formulator, of policy.” His election solidified the hardliners’ control of the political system. Yet, his time in office was marked by multiple crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a stagnating economy, high inflation, a devaluing currency, and protests over the death of Mahsa Amini in the custody of Iran’s morality police.

Raisi’s death came as a shock to the country’s theocratic establishment. His predecessor, Hassan Rouhani, was a moderate and negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement bound Iran to curb the development of its nuclear weapons program for ten years in return for a gradual alleviation of sanctions. When Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran’s hardliners used the decision to sideline their moderate rivals.

Raisi’s passing also raises uncomfortable questions about who will succeed Khamenei. Potential candidates are Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s grandson, Hassan Khomeini. However, their election is unlikely since the regime likely wishes to maintain the image of meritocracy and is hesitant to be seen endorsing a dynastic succession. In any case, Pezeshkian’s win means that should Khamenei pass away or resign, then he would have a strong role in influencing the outcome of who would succeed the Supreme Leader. While hardliners dominate the system, they are split into multiple competing factions with differing views on domestic and foreign policy. While these factions temporarily set aside their differences in the aftermath of Raisi’s death, the elections exposed and aggravated those rivalries, something that will work to Pezeshkian’s advantage. 

When it comes to foreign policy, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) is thought to be the primary decisionmaker. However, the president can influence policy, even relations between the United States and Iran. Pezeshkian’s electoral victory comes amid escalating fears of a wider regional war due to the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Before Raisi’s death, the United States and Iran fought a proxy war in the Middle East while also engaging in diplomatic efforts to manage the conflict. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who was killed alongside Raisi, played a crucial role in these efforts. While more hardline than his predecessor, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Amir Abdollahian was a career diplomat, a fluent Arabic speaker, and had considerable diplomatic experience in the Middle East. His deputy Ali Bagheri Kani took over as interim foreign minister and continued indirect talks with the United States to avoid further attacks. Amir Adollahian’s death, however, has halted the expansion of these talks until after the elections in the United States.

The conflict in Gaza has also brought the long-running shadow war between Iran and Israel into the open when an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria led to retaliatory strikes by Iran. The situation was more or less resolved when Israel launched a symbolic, targeted strike on Iran, but the potential for escalation remains high. While the situation remains fluid, there is little immediate concern that Raisi’s death would have a larger security impact. Despite supporting groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, who are part of the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel, Iran has repeatedly stated that it wants to avoid a wider war and instructed its regional proxies and allies not to provoke the West. It is against this backdrop of regional tensions that Iran has been maneuvering to increase pressure on the West. Shortly after Raisi’s death, Iranian officials met with delegates from the “Axis of Resistance” to coordinate plans to escalate their attacks, with the objective of forcing the United States to convince the Israelis to accept a permanent ceasefire without triggering a regional war. In the aftermath, Hezbollah has increased the number of missiles fired at Israel, while the Houthis have managed to sink two ships passing through the Red Sea.  

These issues highlighted the potential futures that Iran faced during the elections. Pezeshkian ran as a moderate reformist who supported the rule of the Ayatollah but wanted to liberalize the economy, decrease repression, and possibly expand relations with the West, all of which would be appealing to Iran’s urban youth who are frustrated by curbs on political and social freedoms. He also adopted symbols of previous reformist campaigns, such as by making his campaign slogan “For Iran,” echoing an earlier campaign slogan by former President Mohammad Khatami, as well as trying to associate himself with the 2009 Green Movement protests by wearing green scarves.

Pezeshkian’s former opponent, Saeed Jalili, is a zealous ideologue and a staunch defender of velayat e faqih (“rule by supreme jurisprudence”), the political ideology that forms the basis of the system that enables the Supreme Leader’s paramount position of power. Jalili’s hardline platform advocated rigidly adhering to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution to resolve the country’s social, political, and economic problems. This ultra-conservative approach was designed to appeal to Iran’s conservative lower-income and rural voters but offered little to young and urban Iranians. So, while Pezeshkian has won a presidential mandate, he will have to be careful in balancing the interests of his electorate without alienating the elements of Iranian society who voted for Jalili and support the theocratic establishment. This is especially true since Pezeshkian is relatively inexperienced in foreign policy and national security matters. Nonetheless, by accepting the results of the election, the regime has shown some willingness to accept reforms. How far they will go along remains an open question.

When it comes to foreign policy, the main difference between Peseshkian and Jalili was on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Pezeshkian made resuming negotiations with the United States and the wider West a central pillar of his campaign platform, with the hope that a revised version of the JCPOA would reset relations between the two countries and alleviate sanctions. This would go a long way to improving Iran’s economic growth and reduce the power of the IRGC, which has monopolized swathes of the economy. While a new government has not yet been formed, it is expected that Pezeshkian will appoint either former foreign minister Mohammad Zarif (who led the discussions toward the JCPOA) or Abbas Araghchi (Mr. Zarif’s deputy and a member of the team that negotiated the nuclear deal) to the post of foreign minister. 

This stands in contrast to Jalili, who advocated continuing the late Raisi’s strategy of not linking the economy with nuclear talks, a position that the IRGC shares. In other areas, Pezeshkian shares many of the same viewpoints as his opponent. He is a supporter of the IRGC, has reaffirmed Iran’s anti-Israel policies, and expressed his support for the “Axis of Resistance.” Until Pezeshkian is able to reach a new agreement with the United States that will enable him to implement economic reforms, Iran will likely keep expanding its military capabilities.

Pezeshkian has also stated that he intends to continue Raisi’s policy of fostering closer ties with Russia and China. To soften Iran’s diplomatic isolation and improve its economic situation, Raisi pushed Iran to join the Shanghai Cooperation Council and BRICS+ earlier this year. He also signed a Chinese-sponsored agreement with Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic relations and reduce tensions. Iran has also provided material support to Russia in its war with Ukraine and signed a free trade agreement with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). This strategy, however, did not deliver for the economy, which means that Pezeshkian will have to strike a balance in its foreign policy.

So, what are the chances that Pezeshkian will succeed in turning things around? While it is still too early to tell, it will not be an easy road. Pezeshkian will have to navigate a system where power is concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Leader, as well as a hardliner-dominated legislature that is deeply skeptical of his agenda. It is also no secret that Khamenei favored a hardliner like Jalili for president, so Pezeshkian is starting at a disadvantage in terms of how much he can maneuver. This antagonism could also curtail Pezeshkian’s foreign policy ambitions. During the elections, Khamenei issued a thinly veiled warning to Pezeshkian, saying that anyone who “thinks that all ways to progress pass through America” should not be supported. While this can be interpreted to mean that the moderates should not expect too much support for any resumption of talks, it could also be seen as advice that Pezeshkian should temper expectations. 

Considering Trump’s actions during his first term in office, this is understandable. While Biden unofficially declared the JCPOA dead in 2022, there has been progress in fostering closer ties. For example, in September 2023, Iran released five Americans as part of a prisoner exchange that saw Iran gain limited access to $6 billion in frozen funds. Trump’s re-election is a scenario that Tehran is treating as a foregone conclusion. During the election, hardliners argued that a strong response would counter Trump due to Iran’s ability to utilize its network of regional proxies to attack the United States’ Middle Eastern allies as well as American military infrastructure in the region. Pezeshkian and other reformists have argued that in order to manage Trump’s unpredictability, a more conciliatory strategy is needed.

Whatever his limitations as a reformer, Pezeshkian’s election is a step in the right direction. Expectations about what he can accomplish, however, should be realistic. He has limited powers and must operate in a system where influence is split between multiple actors whose interests will clash with his own. He will also have to plan for how to deal with a United States whose own foreign policy direction could drastically change in the next few months. 

Joe Boueiz is an independent analyst focused on international relations in the Middle East. He is a former Middle East Intern at the Center for the National Interest and a graduate of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Follow him on LinkedIn.

Image: Khamenei.ir.

Beijing has established itself as a top medal contender, but its athletics no longer signal openness to the rest of the world.

The former president is pitching a new grift.

Is the Chinese Navy building a new class of submarines?

It is quite likely, at least according to some new satellite imagery.

With the potential of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific increasingly likely in the coming years, submarines are expected to play an important role to the fighting.

A New Class of Chinese Submarine

Tom Shugart, an open-source defense analyst and former submariner, published a series of satellite imagery on his X (formerly Twitter) account showing what is very likely a new class of Chinese submarine under construction.

“Imagery update: looking back at some commercial imagery at Wuchang Shipyard (one of China's conventional submarine builders), if I'm not mistaken I believe there may be a new class of Chinese submarine out there,” Shugart wrote on X.

I recently acquired this interesting image of the shipyard from 26 April 2024.

On the left, you can see what appears to be a freshly-launched Hangor II-class submarine, the 1st of 8 being built for Pakistan.

You can also see the other, possibly new class of boat. pic.twitter.com/txZO8m8fDe

— Tom Shugart (@tshugart3) July 28, 2024

“I recently acquired this interesting image of the shipyard from 26 April 2024. On the left, you can see what appears to be a freshly-launched Hangor II-class submarine, the 1st of 8 being built for Pakistan. You can also see the other, possibly new class of boat,” Shugart stated.

According to U.S. military intelligence estimates, the Chinese Navy has about 45 diesel-powered electric submarines; around half of them belong to Yuan class (Type 039A/B) and have the ability to launch cruise missiles.

But based on Shugart’s analysis of satellite imagery provided by the global imaging company Planet Labs, the Chinese Navy might very well be working on a new type of vessel.

“The ID of the Hangor-II is based on separate reporting of its launch in late Apr, matching nicely with what we see. Comparing the Hangor with images of earlier 039A class boats—and the new boat—the difference is plain to see. The new boat appears substantially longer,” the naval defense analyst said.

A new Chinese submarine could force the U.S. Navy to adjust its posture in the Indo-Pacific, as well as its strategy.

“Looking at multiple images of it, also appears to have an X-stern, a feature not seen before on any Chinese submarine,” Shugart added.

“Measuring to the X-stern, what we can see of the new boat is over 80m long, compared to ~77m overall for the 039A. I'm guessing it's around 83-85m overall,” the former submariner wrote.

An X-stern refers to the configuration of the rudder of the submarine from the traditional cross-shaped design to an “X” one. Among other things, the X-stern design offers better maneuverability and a reduced noise signature, both important traits for the survival and effectiveness of a submarine at war. To be sure, there are benefits to the traditional cross-shaped design, but advances in technology have made the X-stern more viable. The U.S. Navy’s upcoming Columbia-class nuclear submarine will sport an X-stern.

Open source intelligence is becoming increasingly important to military and intelligence officials. Indeed, the U.S. Intelligence Community regularly incorporates open-source collection in its intelligence products to accompany covert collection.

Chinese Submarine Force

The People’s Liberation Army Navy, as is the official name of the Chinese Navy, can field about 61 submarines of all types.

Specifically, Beijing has 45 attack submarines—the aforementioned diesel-powered Yuan vessels—9 nuclear attack submarines, and 7 nuclear ballistic missile submarines.

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, developed by the legendary Skunk Works under Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, was a groundbreaking aircraft known for its Mach 2 speed and sleek design. Introduced in 1958, it served in the Vietnam War and multiple international air forces.

-Despite its advanced capabilities, the F-104 was plagued by high accident rates, earning nicknames like "Widowmaker."

-It was retired by the U.S. Air Force in 1969 but continued to fly in countries like Germany, Italy, and Pakistan, where it achieved its first air-to-air kill. Today, the F-104 is remembered for its historical significance and controversial service record.

The Rocket with a Man in It: Exploring the F-104 Starfighter's Impact

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter came from a veritable blueblood of an aircraft family. That being Clarence “Kelly” Johnson and his legendary “Skunk Works” program. Among the many fabulous creations spewing from Mr. Johnson’s Skunk Works was the SR-71 Blackbird – still the world’s fastest air-breathing aircraft – and the WWII P-38 Lightning, which was used by America’s “ace of aces,” Major Richard Ira Bong, to score all 40 of his air-to-air kills. 

With a pedigree like that, you’d think the F-104, aka “the rocket with a man in it,” would have equally high-flying (bad pun intended) levels of success. But it didn’t quite work out that way.

F-104: Not a Total Failure, But…

The Starfighter made her maiden flight on March 4, 1954, and officially entered service on February 20, 1958. A total of 2,578 planes were built.

Though it didn’t totally live up to expectations, the F-104 still made history. It was the first operational aircraft to sustain Mach 2 speed (1,534 miles per hour/2,469 kilometers per hour) in flight. 

During the Vietnam War, the Starfighter served the U.S. fairly well from April 1965 to July 1967.  It flew a total of 5,000 sorties during the conflict, and North Vietnam’s pilots never challenged one in combat. Not all of the birds stayed in the air, however, 14 F-104Cs were lost in Southeast Asia – six to groundfire, four to non-combat causes, three to Soviet SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, and one to a Chinese Shenyang J-6 fighter while suffering a navigation systems failure near China’s Hainan Island. 

The Starfighters’ primary mission was escorting Lockheed EC-130 motherships carrying drones and the “Big Eye” early warning (radar-equipped) planes. The latter provided surveillance support to U.S. aircraft over North Vietnam. Starfighter pilots also conducted strike and close-air-support missions in North and South Vietnam, as well as Operation Iron Hand missions to destroy North Vietnamese SAM sites.

However, the F-104 suffered from short-range, obsolete avionics, high landing speed, and until late 1967, an unreliable engine. All of these factors served to stunt the plane’s long-term growth potential. Besides the aforementioned “rocket with a man in it” label, as well as the nicknames of “Zipper” or “Zip,” the F-104 was also dubbed with the far more tragic sobriquets of “flying coffin” and “Widowmaker.” This was due to the fact that it suffered over 30 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. As noted by Robert Farley, “Over 50% of F-104s in Canadian service were lost in crashes, over 30% in German.” The active-duty component of the U.S. Air Force would retire the bird in 1969, and the Air National Guard followed suit in 1975.

F-104 Starfighter “Stars” in Foreign Air Forces

Despite the morbid reputation of this so-called “flying coffin,” it continued to serve in multiple foreign countries’ air forces well after the U.S.-owned Starfighters were retired, including NATO allies Canada, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Italy. For good measure, the “Zip” was also chosen by non-NATO allies such as Japan and Pakistan.

Regarding the post-WWII Luftwaffe in particular, the official Lockheed Martin website notes that upon joining NATO on May 9, 1955, then-West Germany needed a viable replacement for the outdated jet fighters on loan from the U.S. and Canada. “After German officials witnessed the flight of an aircraft already in production – the sleek, yet durable, Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – they instantly knew they had found the ideal plane.”

In fairness to the plane’s deathtrap reputation, “Lockheed would then launch specialized training programs funded entirely by the company to familiarize inexperienced German pilots with their new planes, drastically reducing the number of in-flight accidents.” 

The Italians, for their part, kept their “Zippers” in service until 2005. But it was a non-Western nation, Pakistan, that notched the F-104’s first air-to-air kill. During the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, on September 6, 1965, Pakistani Air Force Flight Lieutenant Aftab Alam Khan shot down an Indian Air Force Dassault Mystère IV and damaged another. 

Where Are They Now?

Stateside, military aviation museum buffs who wish to see a Starfighter in-person have a variety of venues to choose from. Exhibits include the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, and the Wings Over the Rockies Museum in Denver, Colorado. Additional surviving aircraft are preserved at museums and airfields scattered across 17 different foreign countries.

F-104 Specifications/General Characteristics

Crew: 1

Engine: General Electric J-79-7A turbojet with 15,500 pounds of thrust

Wingspan: 21 feet, 9 inches

Length: 54 feet, 8 inches

Max. weight: 27,853 pounds

Max. speed: Mach 2.2

Combat radius with two wing tanks: 294 nautical miles

Operating altitude: 58,000 feet

Armament: One M61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon; two to four AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles

Bomb load: Two 750-pound bombs or rocket pods

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon).  

Main image is from Shutterstock. All others are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The Mirage 2000, introduced by Dassault in 1978, was designed as a lightweight replacement for the Mirage III. Known for its delta-wing design, the Mirage 2000 offered exceptional maneuverability and speed, capable of exceeding Mach 2.

-Featuring advanced aerodynamics, fly-by-wire controls, and an SNECMA M53 afterburning turbofan engine, the jet became renowned for its performance.

-Entering service in 1984, it saw action in the Gulf War, Bosnian War, and Kosovo War. Widely exported to countries like India, UAE, and Taiwan, the Mirage 2000 remains a significant achievement in military aviation, blending affordability with impressive capabilities.

Mirage 2000: The Legacy of Dassault's Delta-Wing Fighter

French aerospace manufacturer Dassault is perhaps best known for the delta-wing Rafale fighter. But the Rafale was not Dassault’s first delta-winged fighter. Flying first in 1978 was the Mirage 2000, which would be produced for 30 years and flown by air forces around the world.

Introducing the Mirage 2000

The Mirage 2000 was designed as a lightweight fighter replacement for the Mirage III, which the French Air Force used in the 1960s and 1970s. (The Mirage III is still in use today with the Pakistani Air Force.) Production of the Mirage 2000 occurred at three different sites. The wings were built at Martignas, while the fuselages were built at Argenteuil. Final assembly was overseen at the Bordeaux-Merignac Airport.

The Mirage 2000’s debut flight in 1978 took place just 27 months after the program was given a green light. Piloting the first flight was Jean Coureau, who took the jet to Mach 1.02 without afterburner, climbed to 12,000 meters, and then accelerated to Mach 1.3. After 65 minutes aloft, Coureau returned the aircraft safely to Earth. 

Later, the Mirage 2000 would show itself capable of surpassing Mach 2 while still retaining the ability to perform well at low speed. The jet could maintain a 25-degree angle of attack, or 30 degrees with fuel and ordnance.

Designing the Mirage 2000

When the Mirage 2000 rolled off the assembly line, it featured a delta-wing construction. Specifically, the jet had low-set, thin wings with a leading edge swept back at 58 degrees and a trailing-edge forward sweep of 3.5 degrees. The wing’s flight surfaces were composed of four elevons and four leading edge slats. 

One benefit of the delta-wing design was a comparatively large wing area, which reduced wing loading. The Mirage 2000’s wing area was about 41 meters squared, creating a wing loading of about 77 pounds per square foot at a takeoff weight of 33,000 pounds. The result was a highly maneuverable aircraft, exceeding the maneuverability of the F-15 and the similarly sized F-16, which had a wing loading of 110 pounds per square foot.

Another benefit of the Mirage 2000’s delta wing was the blending of wing root and engine, which allowed the jet to carry more fuel. The jet’s internal fuel tanks could carry over 900 gallons of fuel – about 200 gallons more than the Mirage III. 

The delta wing also allowed for low drag, low radar cross section, high-speed aerodynamics, and a simple design.

An airbrake was fitted above and below each of the wings, while a distinctly tall tailfin helped increase stability. The jet was designed with a degree of relaxed stability, with the center of gravity placed ahead of the center of pressure. This, again, enhanced maneuverability. The Mirage 2000 relied on fly-by-wire controls and four analog computers to help maintain stable flight – a necessity given the shortcomings of the delta wing at low speed.

The Mirage 2000 ran on an SNECMA M53 afterburning turbofan engine, a single-shaft engine of modular construction that was relatively light and simple. The M53 featured three low-pressure compressor stages, five high-pressure stages, and two turbine stages. The engine was rated for 21,000 pounds of thrust with afterburners engaged.

The jet was equipped with two built-in DEGA 554 autocannons, a 30mm revolver-type cannon with 125 rounds each. The cannons could be configured to fire at either 1,200 or 1,800 rounds per minute.

Entering Service

The Mirage 2000 entered service with the French Air Force in 1984. The jet was deployed during the Gulf War, flying high-altitude air defense for U.S. Air Force U-2 spy planes. The Mirage 2000 would later support NATO forces during the Bosnian War and Kosovo War. One Mirage 2000 was shot down over Bosnia; the pilots were captured and later released after mediation.

The French found an eager export market for the Mirage 2000. The jet was exported to India, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Greece, Egypt, Brazil, Qatar, and Peru. 

In all, the Mirage 2000 was a relatively cheap and small fighter with respectable performance. Granted, peer aircraft overshadowed the Mirage 2000, and it has come to be associated with developing-world air forces.  

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s two-part presidential elections on June 28 and July 5 resulted in the lowest turnout on record since the 1979 revolution, a testament to the tanking legitimacy and popularity of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial. The majority of Iranian voters protested what they dubbed as “Circus Elections,” ahead of which the Guardian Council had banned seventy-four candidates from running. Although media outlets have described the ultimate winner, Masoud Pezeshkian, who was sworn in earlier today, as a “reformist,” many Iran watchers warn against being fooled by his political label.

Pezeshkian’s interactions with and statements about the Iranian regime’s terrorist proxies across the Middle East offer a more accurate picture of his worldview. Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Tehran’s Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, was one of the first to congratulate Pezeshkian, stating: 

We, in Hezbollah and in resistance movements in the region, consider the patronage of the Islamic Republic as strong, stable, and eternal. We will accompany your government on the path to the realization of final victory, which will be based on a strong and powerful Iran.

In his response to Nasrallah, Pezeshkian pledged the regime’s support for Hezbollah, writing: 

The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported the resistance of the people in the region against the illegitimate Zionist regime. Supporting the resistance is rooted in the fundamental policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the ideals of the late Imam Khomeini, and the guidance of the Supreme Leader, and will continue with strength.

Similarly, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas’s political bureau, expressed his gratitude to Pezeshkian during a phone call: “We appreciate Iran for playing a role in supporting the Palestinian cause, and we demand more political and diplomatic efforts to bring an end to Israel’s aggression.” Earlier, Pezeshkian had pledged his “comprehensive support” to Hamas “until all their aspirations and rights are realized and Al-Quds (Jerusalem) is liberated.”

As a politician, Pezeshkian has firmly abided by this basic Iranian-regime tenet, consistently expressing anti-Israel views. For example, in December 2023, while serving as a member of parliament, he stated: “Zionists are murderers, Zionists attacked the maternal land of Palestinians and trampled on the basic rights of the people of this land.”

He added:

In addition to encroachment and occupation of this land from more than half a century ago until today, the Zionists, using false pretenses, have bombarded the people of Palestine, have carried out many crimes against them, and have trampled on all international laws regarding such issues and have not shown any mercy to women, children, the young and the old.

Pezeshkian also justified Hamas’s murderous attack on Israel on October 7: 

When a people [ie. Gazans] are under siege and are, in a way, imprisoned and are not allowed any movement, eventually, they will react. No one can stay in prison until the end of their life. The Palestinian nation carried out the Al-Aqsa operation because of sanctions, siege, cruelty, and oppression. The people of Palestine want their lives and freedom.

Pezeshkian also publicly supported the Islamic Republic’s massive drone and missile attack against Israel on the night of April 13. He described the attack as a “source of pride:” 

The world did not imagine that the armed forces of the Islamic Republic could even throw a stone in their [Israel’s] direction, and in the operation, all the world’s missile powers came to Israel’s help, but ultimately, Iran’s drones and missiles hit their targets and their grandeur collapsed.

Although the new Iranian president has been echoing regime hardliners in embracing terrorism against the Jewish State, he also has diverged from them in other areas of foreign policy. During his presidential campaign, he called for the Islamic Republic’s return to the nuclear deal. He has also claimed to desire an improvement in relations with the United States and the European Union.

During Pezeshkian’s election campaign, the issue of supporting Palestinians against Israel was raised mostly by Shamsollah Alvaezin, the head of his campaign. In an interview with the regime’s Ofogh TV on June 16, 2024, Alvaezin stated that for years, the issue of Palestine has been one of Pezeshkian’s concerns. “In case of victory [in the elections], special expert groups regarding Palestine will be formed and the issue of Palestine will receive special attention from the region’s countries [the Middle East] and Islamic countries.” Alvaezin added that as president, Pezeshkian plans to support the Palestinians by joining South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

Statements by Pezeshkian and his inner circle show that despite potential outreach to the European Union and the United States, Tehran’s support for terror groups targeting Israel and Jews worldwide will likely continue unabated. Pezeshkian calls himself a reformist, yet neither he nor his boss, Khamenei, have any intention of “reforming” the regime’s sponsorship of terrorism, antisemitism, and Holocaust denial. It would be prudent for the international community to remember that when dealing with the new Iranian president and not be fooled by the misleading “reformist” label.

Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli lecturer, author, and commentator. He has been teaching Iranian politics at Reichman University in Israel since 2012 and is the Anti-Defamation League’s Advisor on Iranian Affairs. Follow him on X @MeirJa.

Aykan Erdemir is ADL’s Director of Global Research and Diplomatic Affairs. Follow him on X @aykan_erdemir.

Image: Khamenei.ir.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy requires a robust fleet of advanced attack submarines, such as the Virginia-class Block V, to effectively project power and counter threats from rivals like China, Russia, and Iran.

-These submarines can operate in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environments, carrying out long-range missile strikes and supporting Special Forces operations. However, budget constraints and a struggling industrial base have limited the Navy's ability to build these vital platforms.

-Despite recognizing the need for more submarines, the Navy has reduced its procurement, jeopardizing its strategic capabilities in contested regions. Enhanced production of these submarines is crucial for maintaining U.S. naval superiority.

Why the Virginia-Class Submarine Matters 

The U.S. Navy requires a large fleet of advanced attack submarines if it is to project power. This is because rivals such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea –  and even non-state threats like the Yemen-based Houthi rebels – are building anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) defensive systems. These are designed to prevent traditional U.S. power projection platforms such as the aircraft carrier from approaching contested territories, thereby negating the U.S. military’s ability to deter these rivals. 

With only a handful of the expensive and complex Seawolf-class attack submarines on hand, the Navy has come to rely on the newer Virginia-class Block V submarines. 

These systems, costing $4.3 billion per unit to build, are considered more affordable than the Seawolf and just as advanced. 

The Navy had been building an average of two Virginia-class subs per year. But, much to the shock of many defense experts, the Navy canceled one of the Virginia-class submarines from its requests for Fiscal Year 2025, citing a “struggling industrial base and stifled procurement funding stemming under Congressional spending caps.” 

Not to worry, though, the Navy continues blowing its budget on the $13 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier, which is likely to be kept out of any fight with China out of fear of what Beijing’s A2/AD capabilities could do to it. 

The Navy has been explicit about its need to expand the attack submarine fleet, but it has consistently failed to accomplish this worthy goal. Considering steady advances in China’s A2/AD systems, and the aforementioned “struggling industrial base” here in America, the Navy needs to start moving much faster toward the goal. Otherwise its ability to project power will be seriously diminished. 

What is the Block V Virginia-Class Submarine?

The Virginia-class Block V submarine allows the Navy to project power deep inside an enemy’s A2/AD bubbles. It is likely the best U.S. Navy attack submarine ever built to date. 

These submarines can carry out devastating missile strikes at long range. Because they possess what many experts refer to as acoustic dominance, they can evade detection far better than any other submersible platform. 

Meanwhile, the Block V Virginia class’ fly-by-wire control system allows the ships to operate more safely in shallower waters. The South China Sea and Taiwan Strait are considered far shallower than other locations U.S. submarines operate, making the fly-by-wire system key to ensuring safe operations while the submarines maneuver in those contested regions. 

This class of submarine can carry up to 37 torpedo-sized weapons. The Block V has an expanded vertical launch system that can accommodate 28 projectiles, namely the Tomahawk cruise missile. The new Tomahawks being outfitted to the Block V possess an anti-ship missile capability, as well as their traditional land-attack mode. 

Lastly, the submarine has a reconfigurable torpedo room that can substitute as a preparation area for large U.S. Special Forces teams. These commandos can store themselves and their equipment in this part of the submarine. Once the submarine reaches its destination, the operators can stealthily maneuver themselves off the vessel and move toward their targets. 

These Subs Were Meant to Fight—and Defeat—China 

Virginia-class Block Vs are designed for more efficient combat operations in littoral waters. In other words, these subs can get close to the enemy and blitz the bejesus out of them in ways that aircraft carriers and their attendant air wings will be unable to do if A2/AD systems are present and effective. The Virginia class was meant to wage war on China. Yet the Navy continues to shortchange itself by refusing to build sufficient numbers of these systems. 

Inevitably, the Navy will realize how essential this submarine is to win the next war. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like anyone in Washington cares or understands what’s happening to the U.S. Navy.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. military's reliance on traditional aircraft carriers is becoming increasingly problematic in the age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems. Submarines, such as the Virginia-class, offer a more viable alternative for power projection.

-However, the Navy lacks a sufficient number of these submarines, hampered by budget constraints and a weak defense industrial base. Additionally, emerging technologies like unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), AI-driven detection systems, and advanced satellite tracking could soon make manned submarines obsolete.

-Despite these threats, submarines remain crucial for U.S. naval strategy, especially in potential conflicts with near-peer rivals like China over Taiwan.

Aircraft Carriers and Submarines Both Obsolete? 

The face of warfare may be changing but its basic principles remain timeless. Yet, failure to adapt to the changing nature of conflict could lead to defeat. The United States military has become complacent since the end of the Cold War. It has clung onto the tactics and equipment of the previous era of warfare for too long. The aircraft carrier is quickly becoming an obsolete system in the age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD). Until A2/AD can be overcome, the flat tops will be increasingly useless. 

An alternative form of power projection is the submarine. The United States Navy lacks a sufficient number of submarines to sustain itself in a protracted conflict with a near-peer rival, such as China. Its defense industrial base, meanwhile, is sclerotic at best. Still, investments have been made to build new submarines. The Virginia-class submarine is one of the best, new classes of submarines in the US Navy fleet. Sadly, because of budgetary constraints and the limitations of America’s weak defense industrial base, there are not enough Virginia-class submarines available for when a great power conflict erupts. 

A Possible End of the Submarine

For all the concerns from submarine advocates like me about the Navy not prioritizing this essential power projection platform enough, there is a chance that, like its aircraft carrier cousins, the submarine may become obsolete soon. That’s because of the rise of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV). While unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) get all the spotlight from the press, UUVs are increasingly prevalent in the maritime domain. What’s more, they are an evolving threat against which there is little defense. 

As time progresses, the major countries of the world will expand the capabilities of their respective UUV arsenals. UUVs are maneuverable, hard to track, and can be deployed in ways that make it nearly impossible for larger manned vessels to evade their destructive capabilities. 

It gets scarier for submarines when that UUV threat is married to rising artificial intelligence capabilities as well as to a growing coterie of advanced detection satellites, such as China’s Project Guanlan (which means “watching the big waves”), which uses sophisticated, multi-colored lasers to track the movement of submarines when they are underwater by monitoring movement of waves.

Many fear that the eerie green laser show over Hawaii that a Japanese research team recorded on January 28, 2023, was one of these laser submarine tracking satellites on display. As for artificial intelligence, a US, AI-driven satellite made history as it was able to identify and track hundreds of “dark vessels” just based on information that various satellites collected on the Earth’s oceans. The same techniques can be applied by an advanced military, such as America’s or China’s, to hunt and kill US submarines. 

One study found that the entire concept of manned submarines would be obsolete by 2050, given the technological advances mentioned above. Of course, one can never know what the future will hold. 

The Great Power Rivalry 

What is certain is that, in the remainder of the 2020s, there is a great power war brewing. The United States is not in the most advantageous strategic position. Submarines today are highly important and may prove to be decisive in any great power conflict—especially with China over Taiwan.

Still, submarine enthusiasts like me must be aware of the dangers of letting drone technology developments, or the enhancements of artificial intelligence and spy satellites dissuade US war planners away from using submarines as they should be used in combat. Whatever machine apocalypse may be on the horizon, it is not yet here. Until UUVs, AIs, and laser satellite tracking of subs is a reliable feature, American submariners should not expect to be kept out of fighting. 

Until that day, however, US submarines should stay in the fight.

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Vice President Kamala Harris faces significant criticism, often more intense than her predecessors. While some of it is based on her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and electoral history, a portion is unearned, such as the right-wing claim that she is a socialist.

-Critics like Justin Haskins argue that Harris’s policies align with democratic socialism, citing her support for the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

-However, her prosecutorial actions and moderate stances suggest otherwise. Labeling Harris a socialist is hyperbolic and obscures her true political views, which are more nuanced and do not aim to dismantle capitalism.

Kamala Harris: Socialist? 

Vice President Kamala Harris has always been a magnet for criticism. Criticism comes with the territory, after all, of being the Vice President. But Harris does seem to warrant a touch more criticism than her predecessors, like Mike Pence or Joe Biden or Al Gore. Harris’s defenders will tell you the extra criticism is a result of Harris’s race and gender, an idea that I dismiss. Rather, Harris’s criticism seems to stem more from earned sources, like her verbal gaffes, prosecutorial record, and history of running bad elections. Much of the criticism is indeed earned.

Still, like any politician of Harris’s prominence, Harris attracts some unearned criticism. Consider the ongoing right wing claim that Harris is essentially a socialist. The right likes to call political opponents socialists. It’s a quick dismissal, without nuance, or usually, basis in reality. Actually, the right calls people a socialist so often you’d think the charge would lose all meaning, and perhaps, to an extent, it has. But let’s take a look at the socialism charges being leveled against Harris, if for no other reason than dismissing them out of hand.

Dabbling in Socialism

If Harris succeeds in becoming president, Justin Haskins mused in a Fox News opinion piece, “her administration would likely be the most socialist and destructive in our country’s history.” Haskins proceeds, stating that Biden was one of America’s most progressive presidents.

(Fact check: Biden is most certainly not a progressive, despite paying occasional lip service to progressive cultural values. Biden is a Catholic with personal reservations about abortion, who helped craft Delaware into the most pro-business state in the country and has supported Israel’s ongoing campaign against Hamas.)

But, per Haskins, Harris would be even further to the left of Biden. It’s standard conservative fare. 

“In fact,” Haskins wrote, “if Harris were to become president, it’s fair to say that she would be the first democratic socialist candidate to fill the position in the 248-year history of the United States.”

I’m not sure Harris, who once prosecuted truants and minor drug offenders heavily while letting monopolists slip past unprosecuted, qualifies as a democratic socialist. I suspect if we were to ask Bernie Sanders, who worked alongside Harris in the Senate, and who describes himself, unapologetically,  as a democratic socialist, if Harris were also a democratic socialist, Sanders would tell you no.

Harris has supported items that democratic socialists also support, as Haskins points out, namely the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, but Harris hardly seems willing to dismantle capitalism, as any true socialist inherently aspires.

“Americans simply cannot afford Harris’s radical vision for the country,” Haskins wrote. “And even if it could, putting the dysfunctional, inefficient, corrupt federal government in charge of virtually every part of our lives, from health care to the kinds of cars we can drive, should be avoided at all costs.”

Harris has her flaws, which I’m happy to explore. But labeling Harris a socialist is rote hyperbole, which obscures Harris’s true world view – a world view we would do well to understand should she become the next president of the United States.  

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.

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, as it has been undergoing extensive and costly repairs for several years.

-The vessel's prolonged maintenance issues have raised questions about its value and purpose. Built partly for prestige, the Kuznetsov symbolizes Russia’s desire to project power and maintain its status as a significant military force. However, its frequent need for repairs and reliance on support crews have undermined its effectiveness.

-As Russia continues to face setbacks in Ukraine, the operational absence of the Kuznetsov highlights the broader struggles within its military infrastructure.

Russia's Last and Only Aircraft Carrier Is On Borrowed Time 

Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has not participated in the Russo-Ukraine War, despite being one of Putin’s flagship vessels.

Rather, the Kuznetsov has been undergoing costly repairs, for several years, forcing questions over why the Russians wanted the boat in the first place.

Modern troubles for Admiral Kuznetsov

The Russian military has failed to impress during the two-plus-year invasion of Ukraine. Failing to secure meaningful territory, failing to secure the airspace, the operation has underwhelmed – in large part because of underwhelming equipment that the Ukrainian resistance has consistently thwarted.

Several facets of the Russian military have suffered heavy losses and proven ineffective. The Air Force. The Army. And indeed, the Navy. Most notably, the Russians lost the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet’s premier battleship, in 2022, in what was one of the first indications that the Russian effort would not go as smoothly as hoped.

At least the Moskva was able to participate, however briefly, in the conflict. The Admiral Kuznetsov has not sailed since the conflict began and appears likely to sail near the tail end of 2024. The Kuznetsov’s failure to contribute to the war effort tracks with the problems the boat has had throughout its tenure; the Kuznetsov has often required heavy maintenance and was often reduced to heavy reliance on support crews, including tugboats, making the investment suspect.

Why build the Kuznetsov? 

Why did the Russians want the Kuznetsov in the first place? In part because the aircraft carrier confers prestige upon its owner. The aircraft carrier states implicitly that the boat’s owner is powerful and monied.

Only a few of the world’s nations have demonstrated the ability to fund, build, and operate an aircraft carrier – making for something of an exclusive club. A nation like Russia, which is the remnant of the Soviet superpower, and will go to great lengths to posture as though still a superpower, would be especially attracted to fielding an aircraft carrier; for without an aircraft carrier, the Russians would appear as they are: past their prime, over the hill, hollowed out and overly dependent on Cold War tech and equipment.

So, like the neighbor trying to match his neighbor, who recently bought a new sportscar, Russia likely felt something like social pressure to build an aircraft carrier. Then, of course, there are strategic reasons to build an aircraft carrier.

Nothing allows a nation to move around pieces on the geopolitical chessboard quite like an aircraft carrier; an aircraft carrier allows a nation to project airpower around the globe, in an ever-moving way. For any nation with designs on projecting power beyond its borders, the aircraft carrier is a vital tool.

Russia is a regional power, and the Kuznetsov seems built with regional aspirations; the Mazut fuel source is far more limited relative to the nuclear power that can keep modern aircraft carriers at sea for decades at a time. But the Kuznetsov, when working properly, does allow the Russians to move power around the European region. So, naturally, fielding the Kuznetsov did have a strategic upside. Of course, that upside is dependent upon the Kuznetsov being operational.  

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Summary and Key Points: Northrop Grumman anticipates significant losses on the initial production of the B-21 Raider bomber, with up to $1.56 billion in potential losses for the first five units. Despite this, the program remains on schedule and within budget, ensuring taxpayer costs are controlled.

-Future lots of the Raider will see price increases, benefiting the company's financial outlook. Northrop Grumman's stock received an upgrade following the announcement.

-The program, progressing as planned, is expected to include over 100 bombers, although concerns remain about the bomber's relevance given rapid technological advancements and potential long-term costs.

High-flying Margins: Northrop Grumman Looks to See Profit With Future B-21 Lots

Aviation contractor Northrop Grumman is taking a significant loss on its first batch of the B-21 Raider, the future backbone of the United States Air Force's bomber fleet. This has allowed the aircraft to remain on time, and more importantly, for taxpayers to stay on budget. In its early call with investors last week, the company announced it could lose up to $1.56 billion producing the first five Raiders.

Last October, Northrop Grumman chief executive Kathy Warden warned that the B-21 program would not initially see profit. She had previously warned it could see a loss of up to $1.2 billion – while the figures were revised last week.

The Raider Will Cost More

However, the price tag of the Raider is certainly expected to rise, which is good news for investors as it will bolster the company's bottom line. There had been concerns regarding the "profitability" of the long-range strategic bomber, and it has been reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) will have to pay more for subsequent lots of the bombers.

Following the announcement Northrop Grumman received a stock rating upgrade from Deutsche Bank.

"The firm elevated the stock from Hold to Buy, simultaneously increasing the price target to $575 from the previous $474. This adjustment reflects a positive shift in the bank's valuation approach following recent company disclosures," Investing.com reported.

Progress Continues on the B-21 Raider Bomber

During last week's earning call, Warden told investors that the Raider program is progressing as planned, and that includes flight tests. The B-21 remains well within its cost and schedule estimates since it entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in January.

"As we recently shared, B-21 test pilots report that the aircraft is flying like the simulator, which is another indication that our digital environment has effectively predicted the performance of the aircraft, thus reducing new discovery and risk. For these reasons and more, we continue to believe in the significant value this program will create for customers and shareholders over time," Warden explained.

As previously reported, the U.S. Air Force's B-21 raider program was mapped out to avoid a Nunn-McCurdy Act breach that could come from out-of-control development costs. That legislation, made permanent in 1983, allows lawmakers to better manage the cost of Major Defense Acquisition Programs, as it requires the Pentagon to inform lawmakers if a program will incur a cost or schedule overrun of more than fifteen percent.

That may have forced Northrop Grumman to better manage costs, and stick to the schedule.

Yet, the Raider program – which is expected to include more than 100 bombers –  has most of its production covered under a cost-plus contract, which means the Air Force (and in turn the American taxpayer) will reimburse the company for the extra expenses it incurs due to inflation.

The biggest concern now is that it could take more than fifteen years for the Air Force to receive its full order of even just 100 B-21s. If the program is scaled back, costs will rise. Yet, the question remains whether the Raider can retain its cutting edge into the late 2030s as technological advancements have been increasing at a rapid rate. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, quantum computers, autonomous systems, etc. – are evolving constantly, and many of the current platforms could likely be obsolete by the time the platforms reach full-rate production (FRP).

Air Force officials and lawmakers are likely to consider whether the bomber is truly worth the cost.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: Earlier this month, two U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers from Barksdale AFB undertook a notable mission as part of Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4, flying over Europe and the Middle East.

-One B-52 flew from Romania to the Middle East in a 32-hour mission amid rising tensions in Iraq and Syria, integrating with NATO allies and enhancing agile combat employment tactics.

-The mission included support from KC-135 Stratotankers and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. Despite a mechanical issue grounding one bomber, the mission underscored the B-52's enduring role, with plans to keep it operational through the 2040s with future upgrades.

U.S. Air Force B-52s Made Flight Over Middle East

Earlier this month, a pair of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress long-range strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), Louisiana, made an epic flight to Mihail Kogalniceanu Airbase, Romania, as part of the Bomber Task Force (BTF) 24-4 mission. The aircraft's time in the air was extended as the bombers took a route via the North Sea and the Barents Sea before passing over  NATO member nation Finland.

As previously reported, BTF 24-4 was already notable as it marked the first time a B-52 crossed over Finland, and also the first deployment of the Cold War-era bombers to Romania. As the aircraft flew over the Barents Sea, Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and Mikoyan MiG-31 fighters were sortied to "intercept" the American bombers.

This Bomber Is Continuing to Log the Miles

While deployed to Europe B-52s operated as the 20th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron, according to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) – Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA). During the BTF 24-4 mission, the pair of Stratofortress bombers successfully integrated with NATO allies and other international partners.

"In today's global environment, it is vital that we be postured to deliver a range of sustainable capability from great distances. This iteration of Bomber Task Force offers an excellent opportunity to refine our agile combat employment tactics, techniques, and procedures," said Gen. James Hecker, USAFE-AFAFRICA commander. "Through collaborative efforts with our Allies, the U.S. enables our forces to combat current and future threats."

The bomber crews didn't have time to take in the sights, at least not from the ground.

Just days after landing in Romania, one of the bombers was back in the air, flying from Europe to the Middle East late last week. The thirty-two-hour flight on July 25 and July 26 occurred as U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria came under attack, Air & Space Forces magazine reported.

Flight tracking data revealed that the bomber took off from Romania, then flew south across Bulgaria and Greece before crossing the Mediterranean Sea, where the Stratofortress entered the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. The nearly day-and-a-half-long deployment saw the aircraft travel across Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and then to the Persian Gulf before the aircraft made a return flight back home to Barksdale AFB.

"The exercise also included KC-135 Stratotankers deployed from Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, and A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan," the U.S. Air Force Central Command further announced. The KC-135s and A-10s are also reported to have been deployed to the Middle East for ongoing U.S. operations in the region.

Is the B-52 Showing Its Age?

It was also reported that only one of the pair of B-52 made the Middle Eastern flight as the second reportedly suffered "mechanical problems" and didn't take off, according to reports from social media. Though the second B-52 is also back home now, this is a reminder of why it is so important that the Air Force deploys the aircraft in pairs or more – which ensures that the mission can be completed.

The B-52s have been flying since the mid-1950s, and while continually upgraded and enhanced, the aircraft is far older than their current crews. The United States Air Force intends on keeping the B-52s in operation through the 2040s or later, with future upgrades including new Rolls-Royce engines and cockpit layout.

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.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

As Kais Saied’s government tries to capitalize on demand for a critical mineral, the country’s environment and Gafsa Valley residents are suffering.

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Seawolf-class attack submarines, conceived during the Reagan era's military revolution, are among the most technologically advanced in the world. Initially planned for a fleet of 29, only three were built due to the post-Cold War peace dividend and high costs.

-These submarines excel in covert missions, special forces transport, and Arctic operations. Despite their superiority, their limited numbers pose a strategic risk, as seen when USS Connecticut was damaged and will be out of service until 2025.

-The decision to curtail the Seawolf fleet may have significant repercussions as the U.S. faces near-peer challengers like China and Russia.

The U.S. Navy Should’ve Built a Fleet of Seawolf-class Subs

The 1980s saw an explosion of capabilities in the U.S. military. A little less than a decade earlier, there were radical changes in America’s technological capabilities. These changes were not only felt in the civilian economy of the West, such as with the rise of personal computing, but with the advent of advanced microchips that were folded into military systems. 

Reagan’s Revolution in Military Affairs

On top of that, the Reagan revolution in U.S. politics occurred. One of the hallmarks of President Ronald Reagan’s revolution was massive spending on defense projects. As a result of these expenditures came a revolution in military affairs, one that was felt for decades to come. Indeed, many of the military technologies that the Department of Defense takes for granted today are expressly born out of the Reagan revolution in military affairs.

The world’s most advanced warplane, for example, is the F-22 Raptor. This bird was originally created at the height of this revolution. It took years to finish designing and to properly test. But its origins are during the glory days of Reagan’s revolution. 

Multiple other capabilities, some of which remain classified today, originated in the Reagan era. One such platform, the Seawolf-class attack submarine, emanates from this halcyon era of innovation and development in the defense sector. 

The Context of the Seawolf-Class Submarine’s Time

Although she was not ready for deployment when Reagan was in office, the Seawolf class was meant to replace the Los Angeles-class attack sub. Seawolf was launched in 1995, the second term of President Bill Clinton, and was commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1997. 

USS Seawolf was supposed to be the first of some 29 Seawolf-class submarines. But the time she was commissioned in was far different from the Reagan days when she was first conceived.

The Cold War was over. It was a blessedly bloodless victory. Clinton had bested the more competent President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election, partly because Clinton sang the populist song of retrenchment, lauding the so-called peace dividend.

The peace dividend meant drastic cuts to key systems that were designed during the Reagan years. The Soviets were gone. There were no significant near-peer challengers on the horizon. Counterterrorism and humanitarian military operations were the primary concerns of the post-Cold War-era military. The Seawolf class, which was explicitly designed to fight the Soviet Red Navy, was considered a wasteful investment.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. 

Had Washington followed through on its initial plans for the Seawolf class, the U.S. Navy would be in a much better strategic position as it now faces real near-peer challengers in China and Russia. 

What Might Have Been

The Seawolf class remains America’s most technologically sophisticated submarine. It’s also wildly expensive. At $3.5 billion per submarine in this class, Congress understandably balked at the thought of spending for a fleet of more than 20 Seawolf-class submarines. Still, they were significantly cheaper than the increasingly obsolete U.S. aircraft carrier force. 

The four Seawolf-class subs that the U.S. Navy does use are all legendary boats. 

What the Seawolf-Class Can Do

These subs are used for daring covert missions. They can transport special forces operators to remote locations or carry out risky surveillance missions. They’re equipped with next-level weapons capabilities. The Seawolf class is designed to operate in the most forbidding environments in the world. 

A Seawolf-class sub could easily go from secretly tapping undersea communications cables to popping through the Arctic ice to keep an eye on the pesky Russians, who have been angling to dominate the High North since at least 2008.

Can other submarines do these tasks? 

Yes. 

However, the technology found within the Seawolf-class submarines remains among some of the most advanced systems in the world, even more than 20 years after they were first commissioned. There are so few Seawolf-class submarines available, though, that the loss of one would be catastrophic for the Navy’s fleet disposition. 

In 2022, USS Connecticut, another Seawolf-class submarine, crashed into an undersea mountain while it was covertly surveying the secretive Chinese naval base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

While the submarine was not destroyed, it won’t be returning to service until the fall of 2025. With how backlogged America’s ailing shipyards are, it’s probable that it won’t be hitting the high seas for some time. 

The short-sighted decision not to build the requisite number of Seawolf-class attack submarines will cost America when the next great power starts.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: The Russian military is intensifying its offensive in the Donbas, making steady advances despite heavy casualties.

-Over recent weeks, Russian forces have captured several villages and moved closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk, which supports a significant portion of the Ukrainian defensive line.

-Additionally, the town of Niu York remains contested. Despite these tactical gains, Russia's operational capability is hampered by high attrition, limited training, and a shortage of officers. Ukrainian defense forces report significant Russian losses, including 1,060 personnel, 53 vehicles, and 47 artillery systems in the past 24 hours.

-The conflict remains intense, with no sign of de-escalation.

The Ukraine War: Russia Steps Up Attacks in Donbas 

Over the past few weeks, the Russian forces have made some progress. 

“In July 2024, Russian Ground Forces (RGF) maintained continuous attacks in central Donetsk Oblast,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate on the war. “The RGF made steady advances westwards, taking control of several villages and moving closer to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk.”

The logistical functions at Pokrovsk support a good part of the contact line in the Donbas. Losing it would complicate Ukraine’s defense. 

“The RGF also made advances northwards into the town of Niu York, which has been on the frontline since 2014. The town is almost certainly contested between the RFG and Ukrainian Armed Forces,” British Military Intelligence stated.

It is worth remembering that the fighting in some parts of the Donbas has been going on for a decade now. It began soon after the illegal Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts then launched a full-scale insurgency in the Donbas with Russia's direct and indirect support. 

When the Russian military launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, fighting in the area reignited. However, despite fluctuations on the contact line, there are some places where the positions have remained fairly similar to 10 years ago. 

“It is likely that Russia will continue to make tactical advances in the coming weeks. However, its overall operational capability remains limited by several factors including a high attrition rate, limited training, and a shortage of officers,” British Military Intelligence concluded. 

As we have discussed previously here at The National Interest, Russian forces are taking extremely heavy losses on a daily basis. 

Russian Casualties are Mounting in Ukraine War  

According to the latest data released by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense – data generally corroborated by Western military intelligence estimates – Russian forces over the last 24 hours lost approximately 1,060 men killed, wounded, or captured, as well as 53 tactical vehicles and fuel trucks, 47 artillery guns and multiple launch rocket systems, 38 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 27 unmanned aerial systems, 25 main battle tanks, and 6 pieces of special equipment. 

Despite the heavy losses, the Russian forces continue to be on the offensive. However, the scope of the Russian offensives is very limited. Indeed, instead of trying to achieve an operational breakthrough and move the conflict forward, the Russian forces are vying for tactical successes. This is almost certainly because they lack the necessary combat capability and resources to conduct maneuver warfare of the sort necessary to achieve larger results on the battlefield. As such, Moscow’s casualties both dictate and restrict the way the Russian military fights in Ukraine. 

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The Pentagon has announced a substantial $2 billion security aid package for Ukraine, aimed at bolstering its defenses against Russian missile attacks and achieving battlefield superiority. The package includes air defense systems like NASAMS missiles and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, long-range fires like HIMARS and M270 rocket systems, and 155 mm artillery shells.

-It also provides Javelin anti-tank missiles, small arms, and electronic warfare equipment. This aid is split between the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which quickly supplies existing U.S. military resources, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which funds the purchase of new weapon systems.

-This support is crucial for Ukraine's continued resistance and counter-offensives against Russian forces.

Pentagon Announces $2 Billion Security Aid Package for Ukraine

The Pentagon announced another big package of security aid to Ukraine. The aid is worth almost $2 billion. 

This latest package of weapon systems and munitions is designed to help the Ukrainians fend off Russian missile attacks and to obtain fires superiority on the battlefield. 

Air Defenses and Artillery for the Ukraine War

The latest package includes missiles for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); short- and medium-range air defense munitions; RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missiles modified to go with Kyiv’s SA-11 Buk mobile air defense systems; and precision aerial munitions. 

For long-range fires, the latest package of security aid includes ammunition for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems; 155 mm and 105 mm artillery shells; and 120 mm heavy mortar rounds. The 155 mm shells are in the highest demand. On days with high operational activity, the Ukrainian military will go through as many as 7,000 of these artillery rounds.

In addition, the latest package of military aid contains other weapon systems and munitions for ground combat, including Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided missiles; FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles; small arms, AT-4 anti-tank missiles; explosives and demolition equipment; secure radios; commercial satellite imagery services; electronic warfare equipment; spare parts, maintenance, and sustainment support; and other ancillary equipment.

“Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced additional security assistance to meet Ukraine's critical security and defense needs. This includes the authorization of a Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) package valued at up to $200 million to provide Ukraine with key capabilities, including: air defense interceptors; munitions for rocket systems and artillery; and anti-tank weapons,” the Pentagon stated in a press statement. 

In addition to the PDA package, the Pentagon announced a $1.5 billion security aid package under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 

“This package includes capabilities to augment Ukraine's air defenses, fires, and anti-tank weapons, as well as funding to sustain equipment previously committed by the United States,” the Pentagon added. 

The difference between PDA and USAI military packages is simple. PDA draws from the existing supplies of the U.S. military. For example, the M1 Abrams main battle tanks sent to Ukraine are refurbished U.S. Marine Corps tanks. PDA is fast and efficient. On the other hand, USAI gives money to buy new weapons systems and munitions off the market. Although the Ukrainians are getting new materials, there is more delay than with PDA security assistance. 

The Ukrainian military depends on Western military aid for its survival. Certainly the Ukrainians are stout fighters with unmatched creativity and resilience. However, it is Western military aid that has allowed the Ukrainian forces to first stop and then push back the invading Russian forces. It is Western military aid that will help the Ukrainians win this war and liberate their country. 

About the Author: 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Historically, lame-duck presidents have experienced mixed success.

Summary and Key Points: China is rapidly advancing its naval capabilities, particularly with its Shang-class attack submarines, designed to replace the outdated Han-class.

-The Shang-class, featuring advanced sonar systems, anechoic tiles, and YJ-82 anti-ship missiles, is as quiet as the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class submarines. With virtually unlimited endurance from its nuclear reactor, the Shang-class is a formidable adversary.

-The U.S. Department of Defense expects more Shang-class submarines, including the Type 093B variant with enhanced missile capabilities, to be built soon. China's industrial efficiency and proximity to potential conflict zones give it a strategic advantage, challenging U.S. naval dominance.

China’s Growing Naval Power: The Shang-Class Submarine Threat

China is the only great power thinking seriously about naval power today. Beijing sits atop the second-largest economy in the world (in GDP terms) and the largest economy in PPP terms. China’s rulers are effectively deploying that vast wealth and technological advancements in Beijing’s bid to become the world’s dominant superpower by the hundredth-year anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (the year 2049). 

As part of the effort, China is building a fleet of advanced submarines that can counter the U.S. Navy’s submarine force.

Paired with China’s industrial efficiency, Beijing has an edge that, if not in terms of quality, certainly surpasses the Americans in terms of quantity. That, as well as the fact that any future engagement between the US Navy and the Chinese Navy would be much closer to Chinese shores, means that China’s growing submarine fleet will have considerable leverage over their American enemies.

The Shang-class attack submarine is China’s second-generation nuclear-powered attack sub. It was designed to replace the aging Han-class attack submarine, which had considerable drawbacks. 

The Han-class Sub Informs the Shang-class Submarine

China’s first-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Han-class, was China’s first nuclear-powered submarine ever. Its development was a significant leap in China’s naval abilities. 

But the Han-class was a mess compared to its Soviet or American rivals. This boat had a length of approximately 98 meters and a displacement of around 5,100 tons when submerged. The Han class was powered by a single nuclear reactor. She was equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes capable of launching a variety of anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel torpedoes. 

She carried around 75 crewmembers.

The common complaint among China’s submariners was that the Han class was far too noisy. In undersea warfare, stealth and silence are the greatest advantages. 

What’s more, the Han-class was about 20 years behind similar U.S. vessels, and its performance was limited by the development level and manufacturing capacity of China’s defense industrial base at the time of its construction. 

Some Capabilities…

As for the Shang-class submarine, there are roughly six in service to China. In terms of her capabilities, the Shang-class comes equipped with six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes of similar capability to its Han-class predecessor. Further, the Shang-class can launch YJ-82 anti-ship and land-attack missiles. Meanwhile, the Shang II-class submarine (Type 093B) is equipped with a Vertical Launch System for YJ-18 supersonic and anti-ship missiles as well as variants of the anti-ship CJ-10 cruise missile.

Shang-class attack submarines carry around 100 crewmembers, and their defensive capabilities include advanced sonar systems and anechoic tiles to reduce the submarine’s acoustic signature. The Shang class is considered to be as quiet as the U.S. Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines, with a noise level of around 110 decibels. 

Shang-class subs are powered by a nuclear reactor, giving them virtually unlimited endurance and range. The top cruising speed of this boat is estimated to be around 30 knots (or just shy of 35 miles per hour). She displaces around 6,675 tons when submerged for the Type 093/A variant, and 6,700 tons when submerged for the Type 093B variant.

China is planning to build more Shang-class submarines, with the U.S. Department of Defense estimating that China will build the Type 093B guided-missile nuclear attack submarine in the next year or so. 

A Fool’s Errand: Underestimating China's Submarines

China continues to catch up to the Americans in key areas. The Shang-class submarine represents one key area where China’s military is moving toward parity with the Americans. 

The Shang-class submarine is a real improvement from what came before it. The West is foolish both for underestimating China’s threat and capabilities as well as for assuming that the United States can counter and/or deter China indefinitely. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)