The National Interest

Throughout human history, technological progress has translated into military prowess. In most instances, the states that incorporate new technologies more quickly and effectively into their respective militaries have gained a significant advantage over their adversaries. The same is likely to be true for artificial intelligence (AI), with the United States and China currently locked in a competition for global AI superiority. This competition for AI and technological supremacy could very well dictate the future global landscape. 

Although China might disagree with the existence of such a technological competition, the United States firmly believes in it. This was evident in a speech by U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks on August 28, 2023. Deputy Secretary Hicks’ speech was significant for several reasons, primarily because it gave valuable insight into the U.S. military’s strategic thinking about China, AI and autonomous systems, and technological innovation.

At the core of Deputy Secretary Hicks’ speech was that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) aimed to have a “data-driven and AI-empowered military.” Although AI has gained mainstream popularity within the past few years, great powers have been looking into the military applications of AI for decades now. From 2014 onwards, when the United States announced its Third Offset Strategy, it has been building the foundation for incorporating AI into its military. The 2021 report by the U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was perhaps the most telling. The report stated that the DOD was far from “AI-ready” and urged it to heavily increase investment by 2025 and “integrate AI-enabled technologies into every facet of war-fighting.” This same line of thought informed Deputy Secretary Hicks’ speech.

Deputy Secretary Hicks announced the “Replicator Initiative,” which she described as a new DOD initiative to develop quickly and field “swarms of low-cost air, land, or sea drones that could swarm an enemy.” She called it a “big bet” that could counter China’s most significant advantage—the ability to bring a mass of platforms and people to the battlefield. The DOD hoped to leverage “attritable, autonomous systems in all domains—which are less expensive, put fewer people in the line of fire, and can be changed, updated, or improved with substantially shorter lead times.” 

The initiative would focus on platforms that are “small, smart, cheap, and many.” The immediate objective of the Replicator Initiative is for the U.S. military to “field attritable autonomous systems at scale of multiple thousands, in multiple domains, within the next 18 to 24 months,” Hicks said. This statement deserves thorough analysis. 

Firstly, the scale of the autonomous systems is enormous and will apply to various domains. With the United States currently the technological hub of the world, the widespread use of autonomous systems by the U.S. military would likely force other states to adopt such systems to maintain strategic parity. Autonomous systems would likely proliferate to U.S. allies and strategic partners as well.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the stated timeline of the next 18 to 24 months. This is rather alarming, particularly given that issues surrounding AI ethics and regulation have gathered momentum recently. Although the United States claims to follow a “responsible and ethical” approach to AI in its Replicator Initiative, the specified timeline makes these claims hard to believe. However, it’s also important to note that the U.S. military has likely been working on this initiative for quite some time, so it would have specific rules to reduce the risks of incorporating AI in the military. How AI norms and regulations would affect a crisis, however, is a debate for another day.

Even if the United States had been planning such an initiative for years, it now feels confident enough to announce and implement it. Ukraine has acted as a testing ground for using drones and autonomous systems on the battlefield and has clearly demonstrated their power. Russia and Ukraine regularly deploy drones in military operations. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) estimates that Ukraine has lost a staggering 10,000 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) monthly. These drones are helpful for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) purposes, as well as for direct targeting of the adversary’s military and civilian infrastructure.

Deputy Secretary Hicks also directly mentioned China as the sole target for the Replicator Initiative. She added: “We must ensure the PRC leadership wakes up every day, considers the risks of aggression, and concludes, ‘today is not the day’—and not just today, but every day, between now and 2027, now and 2035, now and 2049, and beyond.” She also mentioned that “all-domain, attritable autonomous systems (ADA2) will help overcome the challenge of anti-access, area-denial systems (A2AD). Our ADA2 to thwart their A2AD.” This is a critical point. China’s A2AD strategy focuses on the South China Sea. The United States stating that it would use drones to counter China’s A2AD strategy indicates that it is willing, directly or indirectly, to intervene militarily in the region.

China, on the other hand, holds an entirely different understanding of AI than the United States does. Although China aims to become the global leader in AI by 2030, it has so far remained characteristically secretive about its military incorporation of AI. However, this has not stopped the United States from viewing China’s AI progress as a major challenge to its global leadership.

Ultimately, the future of warfare will be data-driven and AI-enabled, and, in many ways, it already is. However, we must better understand the potential dangers of integrating AI into autonomous military systems. Given the rapid pace of advancements in AI and the importance given to the military applications of AI by major states, the incorporation of AI into the militaries of major states is a matter of when not if. Deputy Secretary Hicks’ speech mentioned the impact of the Replicator Initiative on the speed and scale of the U.S. military. That will likely be the character of future warfare: it will be fought rapidly, and human combatants will operate alongside many autonomous systems. Although this might seem to be a more effective method of warfighting for some, the risk of escalation from autonomous systems might be too great.

Shayan Hassan Jamy is a research analyst in emerging technologies and global power competition. He tweets @shayanjamy.

Image: Shutterstock. 

The United States and its allies face a comprehensive, multidimensional challenge from Xi Jinping’s China. One axis of this unfriendly competition runs through the ballot boxes of the liberal democracies, where the evidence continues to mount that Beijing is seeking to undermine democratic systems throughout the Western alliance.

Take Canada: founding member of NATO, partner in securing North American air defense, and one of the United States’ most important commercial and political relationships. To the extent that Americans think about security vulnerabilities stemming from thoroughly benign Ottawa, it might be related to the air quality from last summer’s wildfires or a wincing memory of learning about the War of 1812, where Canadians disproved of Thomas Jefferson’s optimistic conjecture that conquering our northern neighbor would simply “be a mere matter of marching.”

Beijing appears to have conducted a comprehensive attack on Canada’s political institutions: allegedly meddling in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections with the intent of producing a chaotic Liberal minority government; allegedly targeting critics of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Parliament, such as the Tory shadow foreign affairs minister Michael Chong and the New Democracy Party’s Jenny Kwan; allegedly conducting efforts “to build a pliable cadre of politicians in the 2022 local Vancouver elections,” and, particularly shockingly, allegedly trying to recruit and run a candidate against Port Coquitlam, British Columbia’s anti-CCP mayor Brad West, that same year.

This unfolding scandal, the consequence of disquieting, anonymous leaks from the Canadian intelligence services, caught the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flat-footed. It took over half a year before the Trudeau ministry’s sluggish response finally yielded the necessary convening of a 9/11 Commission-esque public inquiry to, inter alia, “examine and assess interference by China, Russia and other foreign states or non-state actors, including any potential impacts, in order to confirm the integrity of, and any impacts on” Canada’s 2019 and 2021 elections and “examine and assess the capacity of relevant federal departments, agencies, institutional structures and governance processes to permit the Government of Canada to detect, deter and counter any form of foreign interference directly or indirectly targeting Canada’s democratic processes.” Canada will now embark on a sorely needed public reckoning with the CCP’s electoral espionage, which will hopefully be able to provide conclusions and recommendations well in advance of the country’s next parliamentary elections.

Other U.S. allies have been publicly coming to terms with the threat of Beijing-backed interference. In August, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) took the unprecedented step of issuing a public report giving “the public … access to NZSIS’s consolidated analysis on New Zealand’s threat environment,” particularly singling out “the continued targeting of New Zealand’s diverse ethnic Chinese communities” via “activities carried out by groups and individuals linked to the intelligence arm of the People’s Republic of China.” In sum, Chinese political and election interference is likely to remain an ongoing concern for the foreseeable future.

At a minimum, this means that America and her democratic allies must “develop safety valves for swift and dispassionate reviews of election interference claims” to “speedily vet all interference claims and identify wrongdoers.” One can only hope that Canada’s public inquiry may ultimately show part of the way. (Nor, it must be noted, must other countries wait to learn from the Canadian experience via the public inquiry—Michael Chon testified in Washington about the Chinese party-state’s agenda of “transnational repression.”) But the development of these safety valves is only a first step, a means to an end of devising a real strategy to preclude China’s next move against a Western democratic election.

In his 2008 book Terror and Consent, Philip Bobbitt analogized the struggle against twenty-first-century globalized, networked asymmetric warfare using the concepts of supply and demand, noting that while “most analytic work on terrorism … focused on the demand side … the characteristics and the causes that motivate” terrorists, with the upshot that a strategy focused on driving that demand curve down necessitated a deterrence strategy with all the attendant “retaliatory requirements” of such an approach. Bobbitt argued that this focus ignored ways of reducing “the supply side of terrorism”—the field of risks and targets available to malign actors.

When it comes to handling covert election interference by China and other adversaries, however, the conversation often seems flipped, with a focus on how to control supply by hardening civil society against the effects of such chicanery. In Canada, one such proposal in particular, a foreign agents registry akin to the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, has been bruited about for several years. No doubt the public inquiry will burrow into “the supply side of election interference,” and make recommendations on the advisability of a registry and other “supply” issues.

But the public inquiry, and any other reviews carried out against the People’s Republic of China’s electoral espionage operations, ought to also address the question of reducing demand. One downside of a supply-side strategy against foreign interference is the risk of going too far. Going to American history, neither the Sedition Acts of 1798 or 1918, nor the domestic anti-communism crackdowns of the 1950s, are fondly remembered for good and sufficient reason. Liberal democracies function best when they maintain “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

To that end, the public inquiry ought to consider how to restore deterrence against further and future interference in Western elections, such as by signaling to China and other interfering states that efforts to co-opt political activists, launder funds into the Canadian political system, or engage in candidate recruiting is the functional equivalent of an attack on critical infrastructure. The integrity of an election, after all, may well have the same value as the integrity of a bridge or a communications system. If it takes that path, the inquiry ought to also deal with how red lines can be communicated to adversaries and what might be considered a proportionate response. After all, the Chinese do not have similarly situated popular elections that the Canadians (or anyone else, for that matter) can execute a retorsion against.

As a result, such a conversation will ultimately need to bring in all Western governments under the threat of potential Chinese election intervention. What Professor Bobbitt noted in the terrorism context likely also holds true in these circumstances as well: “with respect to global, networked agents … the effective deterrence policy of one target state simply diverts attacks to allied states.” And while public reporting suggests that China only considered, but ultimately declined, to substantially interfere in the 2020 American elections, we should not wait for that shoe to drop in future contests here at home.

Zac Morgan is an attorney specializing in First Amendment and campaign finance law. He previously worked for the Institute for Free Speech, and currently serves as counsel to Commissioner Allen Dickerson of the Federal Election Commission.

The views expressed in this article are his own and do not express an official view of the U.S. government.

Image: Shutterstock.

Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, recently warned attendees at the Kiev Security Forum that “World War III is already underway.” He may be onto something.

The war between Russia and Ukraine began on February 24, 2022. In the first few weeks, it seemed as if the Russians would crush the Ukrainians in a blitzkrieg-style offensive. That prediction was wildly inaccurate. The Russian army was ill-prepared for the mission, and its equipment was far less effective than expected. To say that the morale of its soldiers was not high is an understatement.

By late Spring 2022, the Washington Blob was once again wildly off-base, with experts predicting that Russia would capitulate under the Western sanctions. Those expecting a calamity for the Russian economy learned nothing from Western sanctions on North Korea and Iran—two countries much smaller than Russia that have endured severe sanctions over many years. The sanctions undeniably damaged their economies but didn’t change the fundamental nature of the regimes.

Today, Russia and Ukraine appear locked in a “foxhole” war, similar to World War I, where both sides suffered massive casualties without significant territorial or strategic gains. It seems increasingly likely that this stalemate may last for years. There are several reasons to believe this could be the case.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine appears to have the military capability to defeat the other side. At the same time, neither Vladimir Putin nor Volodymyr Zelensky can quit. If Zelensky throws in the towel, his country will no longer be free, and he will likely fall from power. If Putin quits, he will demolish his image as Russia’s strongman and face challenges to his rule.

Some journalists have predicted that the war’s unpopularity, owing to the high casualty count, coupled with the heavy toll of the sanctions, could turn the Russian people against Putin. This, too, is wildly off-base. Russian history is replete with leaders who imposed enormous losses on the population without paying the price of regime collapse. Major strategic miscalculations by Joseph Stalin and his top brass led to humiliating military defeats to the invading Nazi army throughout Operation Barbarossa in 1941. The Soviets lost vast territory, and their casualties numbered in the millions even before the notoriously bloody Battle of Stalingrad commenced. As Russians still boast today, the hardship steeled the resolve of the Russian army and people, leading to a historic victory over the German invaders.

Of course, none of this means the world is marching toward a total war. But key scenarios still could precipitate a turn for the worst. For example, a collapse of the Russian frontlines (e.g., Ukrainian troops breaking through Zaporizhia, Kherson, and surrounding areas and establishing a significant bridgehead on the Crimea peninsula) could prompt Russia to deploy nuclear weapons (tactical or strategic) to restore the balance. Deputy Chairman of Russia’s National Security Council Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly warned that Russia won’t hesitate to use such weapons if necessary. Similarly, a sudden Ukrainian collapse—leading to the fall of Kiev—may cause the United States and its NATO allies to introduce new, more destructive weapons or even deploy “boots on the ground” to restore the balance. In either scenario, the road to WWIII is not only a scenario for science fiction.

More broadly, a miscalculation by either party could have unintended consequences. For example, a Russian anti-aircraft battery downing a NATO jet fighter crossing from Polish airspace into Ukraine due to a navigational error could push NATO to invoke Article 5. Similarly, if Russian long-range missiles accidentally strike a target in one of Ukraine’s NATO neighbors, causing significant fatalities, Article 5 invocation, again, is not out of the question.

Should another nation-state join the war, it could spark a wider war. During the last eighteen months, thousands of foreign fighters have joined both sides. The situation is reminiscent of the international brigades that fought for the Nationalists and the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). But, as the stalemate persists on the front lines, we may see other nations step in. Belarus, where President Lukashenko has sided with the Russians from the start, is an obvious candidate. Another candidate is North Korea. Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un recently replenished Russian stores of weapons and ammunition from his own arsenals. Kim will likely shed no tears if North Korean troops die in Ukraine, gaining him a more significant role on the world stage.

On the other side of the ledger, it remains unlikely that Western countries like Britain, Germany, or France would dispatch troops to Ukraine. But given the deep historical enmity and suspicion that some Eastern European nations, like Poland, harbor toward Russia, who knows what could happen?

So far, China has attempted to convey a policy of neutrality, even as Beijing helps Moscow behind the scenes. China understands that its current economic crisis is partially related to deteriorating relations with the United States. However, conflict may not be a deterrent for Beijing. The Chinese leadership is actively weighing a war of conquest or forced integration of Taiwan. President Xi Jinping could, at some point, offer the Russians a deal whereby they would back his invasion of Taiwan in exchange for Chinese support against the United States and Europe. While some might dismiss this, it is instructive to remember that the People’s Liberation Army (the largest in the world) is about to enter the fifth and final year of its major modernization plan. If the war between Russia and Ukraine is still raging in 2025, such a scenario may be more realistic. 

Thankfully, there are also good news scenarios that could end the conflict and, therefore, the diminished likelihood of a global conflict. In a sense, Ukraine and Russia have proven their ability to maintain some sort of ceasefire by avoiding an all-out war after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. Relative calm endured through 2022. It wasn’t a complete ceasefire, as regular skirmishes continued in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (where most of the population are ethnic Russians). Still, it was kept (more or less) under control. Thus, both sides might agree to a ceasefire if it means not accepting defeat.

One significant wildcard is former president Donald Trump. If Trump returns to the White House next year, he will likely uphold his promise and cut all aid to Ukraine. He could even apply pressure on his NATO allies to stop their support. In such a scenario, the Ukrainians may reluctantly agree to a ceasefire under disadvantageous conditions. 

While the chances for the war in Ukraine to evolve into a global conflict are not high, they are not nil either. Tensions are high, and European nations are increasing their defense spending. The fear of wider Russian aggression has many of these countries on edge. They understand that as the war drags on, as the casualties mount, and the sanctions pressure grows, the “wounded bear” can become even more dangerous and potentially more prone to miscalculation.

Brigadier General (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a visiting professor at the Technion. He previously served as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s national security advisor and the head of Israel National Security Council (acting).

Lt. Colonel (res.) Boaz Golany is a Professor at the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, where he has served as a Dean, VP for External Relations & Resource Development, and Executive VP & Director General. His research interests cover diverse areas of applied operations research. He has also served as a board member and consultant to various companies and organizations.

Image: Shutterstock.

It is commonplace to observe that Beijing enjoys control over much of the globe’s rare earth and critical mineral extraction and processing industries. China built this dominance over two decades and is unwilling to give it up. On the other hand, America’s critical minerals supply chains feature extensive vulnerabilities that private enterprise cannot resolve independently. The U.S. government faces a daunting challenge in establishing resilient, competitive, and alternative critical mineral supply chains immune to disruptions and economic coercion.

The United States must cooperate with its allies on critical minerals for two reasons. First, its industries have expansive demands that cannot be met by increased domestic production alone. Second, it does not possess enough mines and accessible deposits of all the critical minerals industry needs.

The U.S. economy’s already extensive critical minerals demand will grow almost exponentially in the coming decades. Demand for lithium, a crucial input in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, is projected to increase by 4,000 percent in the coming decades. 

No single nation can meet the projected global demand for critical minerals on its own. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that fifty new lithium mines, sixty new nickel mines, and seventeen new cobalt mines will be required to meet global demand. These are only three of fifty minerals that the United States now classifies as “critical minerals.”

No nation has enough proven resources to meet this demand, but a few are key. The concentration of minerals is spread worldwide, including in China, Russia, the Congo, South America, and Australia. Many countries with large mineral reserves are strategic competitors or politically unstable.

China currently controls the critical minerals and rare earth marketplace. It is the global lead producer of twenty-nine commodities, including twenty-two metals and seven industrial minerals. It refines up to ninety percent of the world’s rare earth ore.

Where China does not possess a near monopoly, it can control the market through “monopsony”—a market condition featuring one overbearingly and singularly important customer. While it does not produce the most essential battery materials—lithium, cobalt, and graphite—it buys, refines, and exports them to incomparable degrees.

Beijing is using this market power in increasingly coercive ways. It has increased restrictions on its critical minerals exports nine times between 2009 and 2020, more than any other supplier. It has cut off Japanese supply for geopolitical reasons and threatened U.S. defense contractors’ supply chains.

Removing China entirely from global critical mineral supply chains is not economically feasible. But competition is needed. America’s critical minerals supply chains cannot depend on a single nation, especially an unreliable one.

With its unparalleled natural wealth in critical minerals, rare earths, and other vital commodities, Australia has emerged as the key ally to bolster the United States’ security and resilience in this vital domain.

However, Australia needs more capital and foreign investment to transform potential into viable supply chains. To date, Chinese state-owned investors have been more than happy to meet this need. 

As a global region, Oceania alone has outstripped Asia’s mineral production since 2000, and this growth has been driven almost exclusively by Australia. But China was also Australia’s largest buyer—fueling its growth with Australian raw materials. 

The Australian government has already acted to inhibit Chinese ownership of critical minerals mining projects, creating space for capital from the United States and like-minded nations.

Australia’s vastness and lack of funding have left significant natural reserves untapped. It has also left Australia, in mining terms, underexplored. Vast reserves might remain hidden in the Land Down Under. 

The United States is not alone in its demand for critical minerals. Global demand is increasing broadly across large economies, and there will be healthy competition from Japan, the EU, and India. The United States has already begun to deepen critical minerals cooperation with Australia, with President Joe Biden promising to designate Australia as a “domestic source” under the Defense Production Act (DPA), allowing Australia to benefit from the $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act clean energy incentives.

A solid economic incentive exists for mutual investment between Australia and the United States in critical mineral mining, refining, and manufacturing. U.S.-Australia ties are also significant and deepening in other areas, principally in defense through the trilateral AUKUS agreement.

At the 2023 Darwin Dialogue, a one-point-five track dialogue with representatives from the US, Japan, and Australia, a clear message emerged for the way forward. Australian, Japanese, and American governments and industry leaders must work together to develop viable, competitive alternative critical mineral markets that offer products through supply chains secure from domestic policy disruptions and economic coercion.

Dr. John Coyne is Head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institutes Northern Australia Strategic Policy Centre.

Henry Campbell is the Coordinator of the Australian Strategic Policy Institutes Northern Australia Strategic Policy Centre.

Image: Shutterstock. 

Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau sparked a diplomatic crisis by accusing India’s government of complicity in the June 2023 murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canada-based Sikh leader, in suburban Vancouver. The Canadian government alludes publicly to supposed intelligence that it neither details nor releases. Trudeau’s publication of the matter comes against the backdrop of declining popularity and a frosty reception at the G20 Summit.

After Trudeau’s comments, both Canada and India expelled senior diplomats from the other’s embassies. Canada has reportedly sought U.S. support in the spat. The Biden administration denies rebuffing Canada, but appears wary of antagonizing India.

Frankly, Biden is right to avoid giving immediate support to Trudeau.

First, there is the problem of Nijjar himself. Canadians may say he simply was a plumber who was a political activist on the side. The reality is more complicated.

Nijjar lived in India for twenty years, during which he joined the Khalistan Tiger Force—a separatist group waging an insurgency in Punjab, an Indian state twice the size of Massachusetts with a population the size of Florida’s.

The Khalistan movement argues for a separate Sikh state, a goal the militants often seek to impose with violence since the majority of Sikhs reject such religious nationalism. In 1997, Nijjar reportedly fled to Canada using a fake passport under the name Ravi Sharma. Police at the Toronto airport arrested him, but he countered with an asylum claim based on alleged police harassment in India. The courts ultimately rejected his asylum claim, but then he sought citizenship based on a marriage to a Canadian woman. Immigration authorities initially rejected this, too, based on suspicion the marriage was fake. But on appeal, the Canadian government awarded him citizenship and a passport.

In 2015, Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency allegedly used Nijjar to help them establish a training camp for Khalistan militants near Mission, British Columbia. India accused Nijjar of involvement in a number of terror acts, including planning the 2007 bombing of a Ludhiana cinema, the 2009 murder of prominent Sikh politician Rulda Singh; a conspiracy to kill Hindu religious leader Kamaldeep Sharma in Jalandhar; involvement in a temple explosion in Patiala in 2010; and a number of assassinations.

In effect, Canada knowingly harbored a person suspected of having plenty of blood on his hands. India is right to be upset by Canada’s tolerance for Sikh extremism. Not only does the country harbor the Khalistan Tiger Force, but it also hosts the World Sikh Organization, Sikhs for Justice, and Babbar Khalsa International, all groups that Indian officials say promote violence and/or have links to foreign powers.

Canada, after all, would be right to be angry if a Quebecois fringe decided the proper way to pursue the goal of Quebec nationhood was to assassinate politicians and bomb cinemas. If such terrorists then based themselves in India, Canada’s rhetoric would be far different.

That might be hypothetical, but the inconsistencies in Trudeau’s approach to violence on his watch are real. Consider the death of Karima Baloch, a Pakistani human rights activist found murdered in Toronto. Canadian police took the lead on the case. Even after suggestions of Pakistani government complicity, Trudeau remained silent.

The Canadians also appear to blame India for what might simply be the manifestation of intra-Sikh violence on their own soil. Nijjar’s death could easily have been reprisal for an earlier killing. In July 2022, two gunmen murdered Ripudaman Singh Malik, a prominent Sikh once accused but then acquitted of the bombings of two Air India flights, in Vancouver.  Malik later became president of a large credit union, served as the chair of two schools, and managed the Satnam Religious Prachaar Society. Nijjar protested the group’s printing of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, a major Sikh holy book, without permission from other Sikh figures. Just days before Ripudaman’s murder, Nijjar led a group of Sikhs to storm one of his schools and seize its printing press. The simple reality is the situation is complex.

Could Indian agents have murdered Nijjar? Certainly, though it does not seem the likely scenario. After Saudi agents killed Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, Turkey provided evidence to back its claims. That Trudeau is unable to do so suggests he may very well have shot from the hip and politicized an investigation.

Trudeau is cynical. Sikh activists are influential in key swing districts for the forthcoming election. Trudeau might simply have wanted to change the domestic political conversation when he accused India, without recognizing that he would create a diplomatic incident. Fair enough. American politicians do the same thing. Donald Trump promised to make Mexico pay for the border wall he hoped to build. As Senator Barack Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden unleashed a fierce broadside against Afghanistani president Hamid Karzai as a proxy for criticism about George W. Bush’s foreign policy prowess. The U.S.-Israel feud grew after a senior Obama administration official called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an expletive. In each case, what essentially was rhetoric meant for the domestic audience snowballed into an international incident.

 Trudeau’s broadside against India is likely no different. The U.S.-India relationship is simply too important to sacrifice for the venality of a Canadian politician who increasingly shows himself to be shallow and unserious.

Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Shutterstock.

The world is in turmoil. Only thirty years after the fall of the USSR and the collapse of its proxy network in Eastern Europe, a land war is being fought in Europe between a democracy and a dictatorship. 

When the Cold War ended, we could have scarcely imagined that in just three decades we would be where we are now. We know now that the collapse of the USSR in 1991 did not bring about “the end of history” as prophesied. Instead, it bred complacency among the leaders of the Western democracies, great complacency which has sowed the seeds for the current global anti-democratic reckoning. 

Across much of the world, the ideas of a democratic liberal political order, of multilateral international collaboration, and of liberal free-market capitalism are now in retreat. Challenged not by a socialism as an alternative global, and universalist vision, but by an atavistic retreat to nativist, nationalist, and populist politics. This has been affecting both mature democracies and those states that made tentative steps toward a liberal political order in the aftermath of the Cold War. The result has been both a rise of authoritarian regimes, often through the degeneration of what were previously more functional democracies, and the decline of multinational coordination among countries now more likely to stress the primacy of the nation-state as the focus for the formulation of practical policies.

It is thus that in India, Narendra Modi is taking his country closer to Hindu chauvinism. In China, the Chinese Communist Party is ruling with an iron fist and perpetuating a high-technological genocide against the Uyghur religious and ethnic minority. In Europe and its surrounds, Turkey is sliding into autocracy under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Poland removes guardrails to keep its Law and Justice rulers in constitutional check, and Hungary under Viktor Orbán becomes a backchannel for other dictatorships as they shape the continent, before the backdrop of media consolidation, executive corruption, and the destruction of ordinary civil society.

The perplexing development with this anti-liberal backlash, however, is that nation-first chauvinist autocrats are now working together remarkably effectively in order to sidestep or undermine international liberal norms and institutions. In my book, Authoritarian Century, I call this key concept “Multilateral Autocratisation.” The emergent dictatorial systems are more alike than they are different, and they are remarkably good at working together for mutual advantage. Tyrannies of a feather flock together. 

But this development is no accident. This propensity among the autocrats and aspiring autocrats to cooperate with each other has not emerged purely organically. This has been a development that has been cultivated, coordinated, and even often sponsored (in direct cash terms) by powers that have decided that the post-Cold War liberal international order is a strategic threat to their own interests—above all by Vladimir Putin’s regime in Moscow, and the Communist regime in Beijing. 

Now, the two powers are distinct, both in their mode of operation and in the nature of the threat they pose. Moscow’s methods are mostly subversion and destruction—and the most they can produce is chaos. They are no less dangerous for it, but Putin does not have a positive vision of the world to offer anyone else. 

Beijing, on the other hand, does offer a path to an alternative, relatively well-ordered international settlement. It wishes to create a “multipolar world” in which the democracies of the Western alliance are overmatched by the world’s tyrannies. Beijing’s plans to reorientate the global economy along the Belt and Road Initiative are part of this process of building up the economies of the tyrannies and deepening their interconnection. 

Beijing also puts special effort into wresting control of already existing international institutions, which give it authority over global rules and norms, as it seeks to mold these to fit its immediate interests and its vision of the future. It was thus that the World Trade Organization was not able to curb China’s unfair trade practices, that the World Health Organization could not censor China over false COVID data, and thus how the United Nations Law of the Sea could not stop China from expanding in the South China Sea.

The problem with the future offered by China is what it implies for the well-being of billions of people later this century: Beijing supports every kind of political repression that aligns with its interests and has no qualms about carrying out a genocide of its own in its western province in Xinjiang, at the same time as it has utterly crushed the democratic culture of Hong Kong, and it is planning the annexation of the democratic country of Taiwan. As the pressures of climate change will continue to mount as we proceed through this century, Beijing will be responding purely in terms of political advantage, with no regard for human rights or international justice—and this will have life or death repercussions for untold millions of people around the world. 

But the fight over our future this century is not yet settled. Moscow has stumbled in its appalling invasion of Ukraine, and is already greatly diminished internationally. Putin himself may fall, if the circumstances align just right. And Xi has made a number of missteps both in domestic management and in international diplomacy which have set China’s rise back by at least a decade, giving liberal democrats around the world time to regroup. 

This then is the challenge that those of us who care about democracy and human rights have before us most acutely in the coming two decades, but really for the rest of this century: either we allow the international system to once again lapse into a state of complete anarchy, a state in which nations engage in a continuous “war of all against all” between empires and spheres of influence, with the notions of universal human rights and international law falling by the wayside; or we regroup and rebuild the postwar liberal international order which has enabled the most dramatic advancements in the human condition in our history as a species. As the threats of climate change and ecological collapse hang over us, the stakes could not be higher. 

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is a Director at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington DC and Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College.

Image:  LEE SNIDER PHOTO IMAGES / Shutterstock.com

The potential for another border clash between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is becoming more likely as the two countries engage in an arms race. Territorial and water resource disputes characterized previous border clashes in 2021 and 2022. A renewed Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border conflict would be dangerous as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies Turkey and the United States find themselves supporting countries on opposing sides.

Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington’s approach to security in Central Asia has become more modest as temporary U.S. military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have been closed. However, the United States is still involved in Central Asian security affairs as, since Tajikistan’s independence, Washington has provided Tajikistan with $330 million in security sector assistance. This sizable sum includes hundreds of vehicles, a comprehensive training center, and border management and customs control support. As a result, the United States has become one of Tajikistan’s top security donors despite Russia being Tajikistan’s most significant security and trading partner.

Meanwhile, pan-Turkic solidarity has prompted Ankara to support Kyrgyzstan in its conflict with Tajikistan by providing it with Bayraktar TB2, Aksungur, and Anka unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Turkey was the first country to recognize Bishkek’s independence and has since placed importance on maintaining stability and development in Kyrgyzstan. Additionally, Turkey can expand its influence among ethnically Turkic countries in Central Asia while Russia is tied up in its war in Ukraine.

With NATO allies supporting opposite sides of a conflict, tensions between Washington and Ankara will unnecessarily rise. Since the early 2000s, relations between the two countries have deteriorated, stemming from differences over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indirectly competing with Turkey by providing military support to Tajikistan will compromise a troubled but important diplomatic relationship for the United States.

The United States is not directly impacted by security matters in Central Asia, especially after withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Despite the withdrawal, the United States has been on a mission to preserve the sovereignty of the Central Asian states by working on security cooperation-related issues via the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, and the United Nations. Instead, security matters in Central Asia should be handled by countries more directly affected by unrest in the region.

Russia and China have much larger stakes in Central Asia, with Russia as the most prominent security provider and China as a significant economic investor. Moscow primarily aims to minimize the spillover of “radical Islam,” which it perceives was exacerbated by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Drug trading, human trafficking, illegal migration, and terrorism are Russia’s biggest security concerns in Central Asia. Russia’s security presence serves China as it protects its increasingly large investments in Central Asian transport and energy spheres.

With Russia’s security profile in Central Asia decreasing because of its focus on the war in Ukraine, China has become a more relevant security force in Central Asia. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have been responsive to the Chinese presence in the region, which includes military exercises, military equipment transfers, the construction of security infrastructure, and the deployment of private security companies. The United States risks unnecessarily raising tensions with Beijing by contributing to Tajikistan's security. 

U.S. support for Tajikistan’s defense capabilities is also awkward due to Tajikistan’s recent security cooperation efforts with Iran. Similar to Turkey and Kyrgyzstan, Iran and Tajikistan share ethnic and linguistic ties. In May 2022, Iran inaugurated its first drone production facility in Tajikistan, which will manufacture and export the multipurpose Ababil-2 drones. This year, Iran became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian political, economic, international security, and defense organization established by China and Russia. As a result, Tehran and Dushanbe will likely engage in further security cooperation.

The United States has little control over how its military resources are used once they are handed over to a foreign government. While the United States does not intend to support Tajikistan in its conflict with Kyrgyzstan, much of its equipment, such as night-vision goggles, has been utilized in the Kyrgyz-Tajik hot zone. Instead of needlessly contributing to escalating tensions in Central Asia, the United States should work with Turkey to encourage diplomatic talks between Bishkek and Dushanbe. As mutual NATO members, the United States and Turkey have the opportunity to avoid a plummet in relations by putting to rest a minor conflict of little strategic importance to Washington. 

Lastly, the United States should work to reduce and ultimately eliminate programs to send military equipment to Central Asian countries, including Tajikistan. With significant Russian and Chinese security presence and military assets in Tajikistan, Dushanbe has the means to defend itself. The United States has no justified reason to do Russia and China’s job by providing for Tajikistan’s defense. 

The United States should leave security matters in Central Asia to regional great powers, namely Russia and China. While the United States has been involved militarily in Central Asia, now is the time to recharacterize its engagement in the region by further distancing itself from this militaristic past.

Alex Little is an MS graduate of Georgia Tech and specializes in Russian and Central Asian affairs.

Image: Shutterstock.

Repairing military equipment in a high-intensity conflict against a great power competitor should be identified as a gray rhino—a high impact, high probability event that, unaddressed, will lead to dire consequences. U.S. warfighters need a plan to tame this beast, or at least divert it, since the ability to repair equipment in the field will be a significant friction point in any mass great power competition for American ground forces.

The U.S. military’s system was for uncontested logistics, with the ability to conduct depot-level maintenance after evacuating vehicles from the front lines and heavy reliance on a contractor workforce for highly technical repairs. It also relies upon air superiority on the battlefield, which is not a given in combat against a peer competitor. While the Marine Corps published an updated doctrine for logistics in a contested environment in March of this year, it will continue to face the problem of sustaining Marines serving far forward as Stand-in Forces (SIF) or conducting Expeditionary Advanced Basing Operations (EABO) in a conflict versus China. Former Commandant Gen. David Berger stated that in a great power war in the Pacific, “It’s just fuel and bullets, that’s what I’m going to resupply. The rest you’re going to have to forage.” These logistical limitations will be acute when repairing damaged military equipment. Absent repairs, it may be impossible for Marines to get back into the fight. Fielding simple and easily repairable weapons and equipment should be a priority for outfitting Marine forces operating within the East Asian first island chain.

Despite disadvantages in size and ammunition supplies compared to the Russian invaders, the Ukrainian military has put up a vigorous defense—and is now on the offensive—through a culture of grit and improvisation widespread throughout the society and its military. One example is Ukraine’s ability to repair in the field by sending mechanics forward, which has proved a combat multiplier. They have successfully repaired donated NATO equipment using parts supplied by the West and leftover Soviet gear by cannibalizing vehicles and using scavenged parts from so-called “boneyards” built up from wrecked equipment. In contrast, a primary problem for U.S. forces is the complexity of the vehicles, weapon systems, and equipment we rely on, frequently making field-expedient repairs impossible. While 3D printing and rapid manufacturing technology may allow for the fabrication of numerous spare parts, even in an expeditionary environment, it cannot facilitate repairs of sophisticated armor nor fabricate semiconductor chips for complicated electronics in devices such as radios, onboard ballistic computers, or guidance systems.

Besides the astronomical costs of many of America’s boutique and exquisite systems, the trade-off between the price of these systems and the systems that can kill them is becoming unsustainable. The Ukrainians have repeatedly demonstrated how cheaper weapons, like the two Neptune anti-ship missiles that sank the flagship Moskva, can destroy top Russian equipment. Russian anti-tank weapons have also made quick work of German Leopards and American-provided Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Sophisticated Russian electronic warfare has limited the effectiveness of precision-guided weapons. Adversaries are developing various methods of targeting the U.S. military’s high-tech vulnerabilities, from attacking satellites to eliminating GPS use for navigation or precision guidance to preemptive electromagnetic or cyber-attacks and even malicious code implanted in systems through susceptible supply chains.

U.S. adversaries will not allow it to build up the proverbial iron mountain of logistics, nor will it be easy to evacuate vehicles or bring forward parts via “just in time” (JIT) delivery by ship or aircraft. Both the Air Force and Navy will be fighting their own existential battles versus Chinese advanced ballistic and hypersonic missiles, cyberattacks, and counter-space weapons. Designing rugged, reliable, and simple-to-repair weapons can help keep the Army and the Marines in the fight longer. Weapons design and procurement should take that into account going forward.

One of the reasons that the Afghan air force collapsed was the withdrawal of U.S. contractors. With the air force collapsing, ground units also gave up as they were no longer assured of resupply, medevac, or close air support. The U.S. military made the situation worse by having the Afghans move away from Soviet-era helicopters such as the Mi-17 and transition to the more technical and maintenance-heavy U.S. airframes. The U.S. military may face its own issues in high-intensity conflict, as defense contractors have withheld the intellectual property behind some of the newest systems, such as the F-35, effectively turning them into black boxes that only the contractors themselves can fully understand. American farmers can tell horror stories of the problems encountered with high-tech tractors and their fights with manufacturers such as John Deere over the “right to repair.”

The new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JTLV), which weighs 20,000 lbs, is too big and heavy to be easily deployed by the Marines amphibiously in the Pacific and can only be air transported by C-130 or larger aircraft. It has also suffered from issues of reliability and maintainability. A major issue that the Pentagon detailed in a 2019 report on the performance of the JLTV is that military mechanics cannot adequately maintain them without field service representatives from the manufacturer. As of mid-2023, the trucks were still not meeting maintenance goals in testing conducted by Marine and Army units.

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. automobile production declined by 93 percent. Shortfalls in the supply of semiconductors to auto manufacturers caused production to lag for years. In reality, U.S. car companies initially decreased their orders, assuming consumer demand would plummet. However, by the time they tried to increase their orders, other industries had already replaced them in the queue for chips. 90 percent of the world’s most sophisticated chips are manufactured by one company (TSMC) in Taiwan, which makes TSMC a critical choke point for modern products, including America’s most advanced weapon systems. The U.S. military should hedge against an over-reliance on microchip-powered equipment to minimize scenarios in which it would find itself in the position of Detroit’s “Big Three” or held hostage by whoever controls Taiwan and TSMC. This further highlights the risks of high-tech weapon systems requiring high-tech repair in high-intensity conflict scenarios.

In World War II, the Soviet T-34 boasted a simple design and was easy to build and maintain. Nonetheless, it had excellent armor, maneuverability, and a powerful gun. The tanks the Wehrmacht constructed to counter the Soviets’ main battle tank were in many cases superior but suffered from excessive degrees of complexity—Tiger tanks took one hundred times as long as T-34s to manufacture—and a resulting need for frequent repairs. Therefore, They were unreliable in the existential fighting across the Eastern Front. Quantity is at times preferable over quantity, and adopting a “high-low” strategy, as Admiral Elmo Zumwalt did in the early 1970s because of budget constraints, could not only reduce costs for weapons lost in combat but may also allow greater redundancy with simple systems easy to repair.

Ultimately, it is unlikely that the Army or Marine Corps will move to less sophisticated weapons and equipment predating the semiconductor revolution. Nevertheless, consideration of decreasing systemic complexity, increasing robustness, and reducing the necessity for repairs in likely austere and minimally supported logistical environments should all be given greater attention for procurement efforts going forward.

Christopher D. Booth is a national security professional, served on active duty as a US Army armor and cavalry officer, and was a fellow in the General Robert H. Barrow Fellowship for Strategic Competition and the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation & Creativity. He is a distinguished graduate of Command and Staff College–Marine Corps University and graduated from Vanderbilt University Law School and the College of William and Mary.

The U.S. military faces a serious challenge. While China and other threats to American interests are becoming more acute, the defense budget and the size of the overall military are relatively static. Plans to field greater numbers of new, more capable platforms, like next-generation ships and aircraft, will take years to materialize. We need a shortcut. Better software that is commercially available might be the answer.

The Pentagon’s Problems…

Acquisition problems have been a long-term bugaboo of the Pentagon, leaving it with fewer planes, ships, and other weapons platforms than commanders and Congress say are necessary for today’s threats. For example, the Navy would like 321 to 372 manned ships for its current responsibilities. At present, it only has around 300. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall looked back on the development of the F-35 fighter—over half a decade of development time and tens of billions of dollars—and characterized it as “acquisition malpractice,” promising to do better with a new bomber under development.

Additionally, the Pentagon faces these challenges during a period of major transition from a force geared toward the counterinsurgency campaigns of the 2010s to deterring major powers, especially China’s fast-growing military. Various officials predict that Beijing could attack Taiwan, likely drawing the United States into conflict, before the end of the decade.

The late Donald Rumsfeld caused controversy when he said “you go to war with the army you have.” He wasn’t actually lamenting the state of the U.S. military; rather, he was observing the fact that changing the composition of the military takes years, especially if change requires building new ships, planes, and other complex platforms.

…Require Digital Solutions

One way America can have a big impact in deterring China rapidly is in the realm of software, especially commercially available software that can be adapted to military needs within months, not years.

Collecting, processing, and securing information better is a way to squeeze additional utilization out of the finite number of weapons systems we have today. Nowhere has this been more evident recently than on the battlefield in Ukraine. Both sides have made far more use of sensors and commercial communications compared to prior conflicts. These have often taken the form of relatively low-tech, quick-to-build, unmanned aerial vehicles. The software to process this information and the design principles to keep it secure have been crucial.

The U.S. military’s leadership understands the need to exploit technology more. For example, Secretary Kendall prescribed seven operational imperatives that included matters like resilient space architectures, optimized command-and-control that works across the military’s branches, scaling up the ability to track and engage moving targets, and communicating in hostile environments where adversaries are poking holes in our networks.

While each of these requirements needs a critical mass of old-fashioned hardware and personnel to match an adversary’s military, they can all be improved quickly with software that is better and more secure than that of the militaries we oppose. Furthermore, the software can often be retrofitted into existing weapons systems quickly and with far less expense than the hardware it is improving. This is especially true if the software can be adapted from the private sector rather than built as a “boutique” product by the government.

Take space for example. Using better software to secure space networks, which soon will include tens of thousands of private satellites in addition to the government and commercial ones already in orbit, can be a way for the U.S. military to understand the battlefield and direct its forces. It can also be necessary to collaborate with less-sophisticated partners. This has also been demonstrated in Ukraine, where commercial satellite imagery has also been used by fighters in near real-time. Government-operated spy satellites may still be the gold standard, but private-sector options are not far behind.

The thousands of satellites that private operators like SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper are placing into orbit, combined with government-owned satellites, will be a major force multiplier if exploited and secured properly with specialized software. Specifically, older satellites and new satellites need to be upgraded and designed to employ end-to-end encryption, zero-trust software design, and decentralized encryption-key management.

Software can also account for the fact that hardware in space will be disabled through enemy action in wartime, because software is what makes networks adaptable. Software that secures information at the data level means we don’t have to worry about relying on government-only networks. When an enemy inevitably breaches a network or takes out network nodes it won’t matter as much if the military can jump between multiple networks and nodes, whether they are military or commercial satellites, billion-dollar ships and submarines, or cheap drones.

A software revolution can help squeeze more capability out of our existing military force in a timeframe that can actually help deter war with China and other adversaries—and leave us better prepared to defeat cyber aggression that has also become the norm of peacetime. But the Pentagon needs to move fast and make greater use of existing commercial technology to keep an edge.

David Pearah, an MIT-trained computer engineer, is CEO of SpiderOak, a space cybersecurity company.

Image: Shutterstock.

The rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning gives new meaning to the measure-countermeasure dynamic—that is, the continuous evolution of defensive and offensive capabilities. The development of large language models, in particular, underscores the necessity of understanding and managing this dynamic.

Large language models, like GPT-4, can generate human-like text based on the input they receive. They are trained on vast quantities of data and can generate coherent and contextually relevant responses. Large language models hold great promise across a multitude of fields, including cybersecurity, healthcare, finance, and others. But as with any powerful tool, the models also pose challenges.

Bill Gates and other technology leaders have warned that AI is an existential risk and that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority.” At the same time, Gates recently posted a blog post entitled, “The risks of AI are real but manageable.” Part of managing AI will depend on understanding the measure-countermeasure dynamic, which is central to the progression and governance of AI development but is also one of its least appreciated features.

Policymakers consistently face the challenge of rapid technological advancements and their associated threats, outpacing the creation of relevant policies and countermeasures. In the field of AI, emergent capability crises—ranging from deepfakes to potential existential risks—arise from the inherent unpredictability of technological development, influenced by geopolitical shifts and societal evolution. As a result, policy frameworks will almost always lag the state of technology.

The measure-countermeasure dynamic arises from this reality and calls for an approach we term “sequential robustness.” This approach is rooted in the paradoxical persistence of uncertainty, influenced by factors such as rapid technology development and geopolitical shifts. Unlike traditional policy approaches, sequential robustness acknowledges and accepts the transient nature of current circumstances. By adopting this perspective, policymakers can immediately address problems with existing policy solutions, examine challenges without current solutions, and continue to study emerging threats. While pursuing an ideal solution is commendable, policymakers must prioritize actionable steps. Perfection is unattainable, but prompt and informed action is an essential first step.

Indeed, sequential robustness offers a reassuring perspective. Regardless of whether AI represents an existential risk or not, this approach reminds us that we are in a cycle of continuous action and reaction. Our focus should be on making the most informed next move. While it’s important to consider the long-term implications of our decisions, we do not need to have all the answers right now—which is a good thing because we certainly do not have them. We do not need to immediately address every AI challenge, just those that are most urgent. As we will discuss, the measure-countermeasure dynamic rarely provides a perfect solution; instead, it creates strategies that delay, deter, mitigate, or reduce harmful outcomes. This continuous cycle of less-than-complete but adaptive solutions characterizes the essence of the sequential robustness approach.

Sequential robustness has played out dramatically in recent history. The stunning rise of aviation made possible the tragic events of 9/11. In response, Congress established the Transportation Security Administration, which introduced the countermeasures of reinforced cockpit doors and intensive passenger screening. The agency later introduced the liquids rule, limiting the volume of liquids passengers can bring onboard, in response to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Later, full-body scanners were introduced in response to the attempted “underwear bomber” incident in 2009.

Similarly, following the anthrax attacks in 2001, the United States took decisive measures to bolster its biodefense capabilities and responses. The Department of Homeland Security initiated the BioWatch program, designed to detect the release of aerosolized biological agents rapidly. Realizing the broad scope of potential biological threats, the United States released “Biodefense for the 21st Century” in 2004, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to tackle intentional bioterrorism threats. This focus was further honed with the emergence of global health threats like SARS and avian influenza, leading to the enactment of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act in 2006, which aimed to ensure the nation’s readiness for a wide range of public health emergencies.

Today, sequential robustness is especially salient given the proliferation of large language models. Malign users could exploit these models to create malicious software or disinformation campaigns. Priority should be given to building ethically driven and robust algorithms while implementing comprehensive policies that deter misuse.

Interestingly, large language models can serve as potent tools to develop robustness. Large language models can be employed to improve code quality and strengthen defenses against cyberattacks. Industry could also use the models to spot disturbing user activity or to automate penetration testing, which simulates attacks to help make computer systems more resilient.

A poignant example of large language models’ potential national security benefit lies in the intelligence failures that preceded the 9/11 attacks. With the information overload and disparate data points at the time, as cataloged in The 9/11 Commission Report, critical dots—like the Phoenix Memo warning about possible terrorists at civil aviation schools, the cautions about Al Qaeda from former CIA officer J. Cofer Black, and the CIA’s “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S.” President’s Daily Brief on August 6, 2001—failed to be connected. The ability of large language models to parse vast amounts of information and uncover connections that humans could overlook might have prevented these catastrophic oversights through timely countermeasures. 

To address biological threats, international organizations pursue countermeasures such as strengthening international bioweapon conventions, enhancing bio-defense capabilities, and monitoring biotechnology research. Here, too, large language models can contribute by identifying malign activities. The models can also contribute to benign biological causes, such as aiding in the rapid development of vaccines, treatments, and cures.

As in other areas of national security, every countermeasure can lead to new measures from potentially malign users, requiring vigilance and adaptability yet again. Throughout this process, it will be essential that stakeholders at all levels—lawmakers, technologists, researchers, and the public—engage in this dialogue. All have a role in shaping the future of large language models and ensuring a balance between harnessing their benefits and mitigating their risks.

In seeking proactive responses to adversarial actions, red-teaming is an essential strategy. This approach involves simulating potential adversaries’ tactics, which allows defenders to identify vulnerabilities and prepare for potential threats effectively. By integrating red-teaming into the development and assessment of large language models, stakeholders can better anticipate misuse scenarios and formulate suitable countermeasures, thus contributing to a more resilient AI ecosystem.

As the United States progresses through this era of rapid digital advancement, it is crucial to recognize that transformative technologies should not be abandoned due to the risks they pose. Rather, the focus should be on understanding the threats, implementing necessary countermeasures, and continuing to utilize the tools in a safer and more secure manner. The dual role of large language models as both measure and countermeasure highlights the complexity of the challenge while also providing insight into effective management. Acknowledging the measure-countermeasure dynamic offers a valuable framework for addressing challenges, enabling the exploitation of technological innovation, and enhancing national security.

Embracing the sequential robustness framework ensures that our future is not solely determined by today’s developments and decisions. Instead, it will evolve through a series of choices made over time, each informed by updated data and shifting contexts, facilitating risk mitigation and maximizing previously unforeseeable benefits.

Christopher Mouton is a senior engineer at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and a professor at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.

Caleb Lucas is an associate political scientist at RAND.

Image: Shutterstock. 

As the global landscape adjusts to an emerging multipolar world, the United States must expand its diplomatic outreach beyond traditional Transatlantic alliances. This is particularly salient given the impending expansion of BRICS to include new member countries from Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. In this context, Central Asia—comprising Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—is a region long neglected in U.S. foreign policy calculations.

Until its 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington viewed Central Asia as a logistical pathway to its military operations. This narrow viewpoint, however, fails to recognize the region’s broader geopolitical importance.

Bordering Russia, China, and Iran, the U.S. has the potential to become Central Asia’s additional partner for economic cooperation and development. This would give the U.S. strategic leverage in a region surrounded by geopolitical rivals. Long considered a crossroads for trade, Central Asian countries are integral players in several transnational projects and initiatives led by China, Russia, India, Iran, and Turkey. This importance stems from the region's central location in Eurasia and its abundant natural resources, including hydrocarbons and precious minerals. Failing to deepen engagement with Central Asia when the region faces a range of economic challenges would be a missed opportunity for the United States.

Kazakhstan, Central Asia’s largest country, has shown a marked interest in deepening its relationship with the United States. Despite its extensive economic and trade associations with Russia, Kazakhstan has refused to support its neighbor’s invasion of Ukraine. This stance aligns with Kazakhstan’s commitment to the UN Charter and its "multi-vector" foreign policy, which aims to balance relations with multiple powers. Kazakh president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has, on several occasions, publicly expressed his country’s position on the war, reiterating that while Kazakhstan maintains a positive relationship with Russia, it will not sidestep Western sanctions. This nuanced stance highlights Kazakhstan's potential as a strategic partner for the United States in the region.

Washington has much to gain from expanding its soft power influence in Kazakhstan and fostering closer political and economic relations throughout Central Asia.

Firstly, engagement with Central Asia allows the United States to diversify its geopolitical portfolio. The region could serve as a strategic intermediary in conversations with states that traditionally fall outside America's sphere of influence. Given the shifting landscape marked by the war in Ukraine and the expansion of BRICS, Washington is lagging in making diplomatic inroads into the developing world, particularly in comparison to Beijing and Moscow.

With traditional alliances under strain and the emergence of new global challenges, the United States should look beyond its historical partners to diversify its strategic relationships. In this vein, Central Asia presents a reservoir of untapped potential that could be pivotal for achieving American foreign policy objectives.

Secondly, the United States has a strategic interest in enhancing regional connectivity, streamlining supply chains, and optimizing energy routes in Central Asia. There are direct advantages for the United States and its allies, particularly in trade routes that bypass Russia. Last year, the Biden administration initiated the Economic Resilience Initiative in Central Asia. This program aims to stimulate economic growth, develop alternative trade corridors, boost shipping capabilities, and upgrade infrastructure along the Trans-Caspian trade route, which originates in Southeast Asia and China, traverses through Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea, and extends further into European countries. Echoing this sentiment, President Tokayev emphasized in his recent state-of-the-nation address the need for his country to evolve into a transit hub within the Eurasian landscape.

Thirdly, the United States can collaborate with Central Asian countries on global challenges, ranging from regional stability and climate change to global security. For instance, a coordinated effort between the U.S. and Central Asia could go a long way in mitigating threats like extremism and terrorism, as well as curbing the narcotics trade originating in Afghanistan.

For the Central Asian countries, closer engagement with Washington allows them to deepen relations with a global power, which would be particularly valuable in areas such as technology exchange, defense capabilities, and economic development, making it a win-win proposition for all parties involved. It is a welcome development that a bipartisan bill has been introduced to the U.S. Congress to end Cold War-era trade restrictions for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan and grant those countries permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status.

The forthcoming C5+1 Leader’s Summit on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this month presents another excellent opportunity for the United States to deepen its engagement with Central Asia. Established in 2015, the C5+1 platform—consisting of the United States and the five Central Asian countries—aims to foster dialogue and cooperation. With President Joe Biden slated to participate, the summit offers a prime occasion for the United States to strengthen its diplomatic bonds with the countries in the region.

Central Asia’s increasingly strained relations with Russia and growing wariness of Chinese influence have created a timely window of opportunity for the United States to enhance its position through sustained, long-term investment in the region. In the near term, American engagement is likely to concentrate on soft power avenues such as educational initiatives, consumer markets, and tourism, given the enduring relationships that Central Asian nations have with Russia and the expansive infrastructure projects underway by China.

However, looking toward the medium and long term, platforms like C5+1 should be catalysts for strengthening economic and political relationships. Proactive American investment in the education, economy, and culture of Central Asia’s emerging generations could yield significant benefits for the United States for years to come.

Failing to recognize and act on Central Asia's strategic significance would be a missed opportunity for Washington. The region will become a key node in a rapidly developing Eurasian network, linking countries, peoples, and industries. Ignoring this dynamic could leave America on the sidelines, forfeiting the chance to play a significant role in an increasingly important region.

Michael Rossi is a Lecturer in Political Science at Rutgers University of New Jersey and a Visiting Professor at Webster University Tashkent.

Image: Shutterstock.

When Bashar al-Assad assumed power in Syria in 2000, Western leaders heralded him as a beacon for reform and economic liberalism. The facade did not last long. His rule contributed to the deaths of a half million Syrians and the displacement of more than five million more.

Western officials apply the same optimism to the Iraqi Kurds. When Masrour Barzani became regional prime minister in 2019, even seasoned columnists like the Kurdish writer Rebin Hardi suggested he could represent change after decades of his father’s ossified rule. Masrour’s behavior quickly disabused them, leaving Masrour increasingly to borrow from late Ugandan leader Idi Amin’s playbook to reset his image.

The Barzanis are tribal, not democratic. Any meaningful political competition occurs as each brother or cousin tries to maneuver for privilege and power within the family. For decades, Masrour and his cousin Nechivran have divided the spoils as each tried to outmaneuver the other. Part of Nechirvan’s play is to depict himself as more Western in his intellect and mannerisms. He does this well. When he meets with Americans or Europeans, he engages and feigns an open mind. Most Kurds see through this. That so many Western scholars fall prey to a cynical maneuver frustrates those in the region who feel the Barzani family now does more harm than good for Kurdish economic, national, and social prosperity and the ability of Kurds to advance economically, socially, and democratically in modern society.

Just as Masrour produced a documentary about his “resilience,” so now does Nechirvan arrange for a book, Road Map to Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Speeches of President Nechirvan Barzani to sing his praises. The moves are not coincidental but merely reflect the latest one-upmanship between the conflicting cousins.

What disappoints is how so many Western scholars—whether out of naïveté, sycophancy, or a pragmatic desire for access only they can say—play along, praising Nechirvan’s “admirably pragmatic” message to the West. First, let us put to rest the notion that there is any coherent “road map.” There is scant mention outside Nechirvan’s vanity outlet Rudaw of any such speeches or their visions.

Certainly, Barzanis know how to say the right thing in front of the Western diplomats who travel to Erbil to do the “full Barzani,” meeting father Masoud Barzani, son Masrour, and Masrour’s cousin Nechirvan, before a lavish feast and a flight out to Baghdad, Istanbul, or Dubai. What the scholars miss in their paean to the president, however, is what Nechirvan says and does when they are not around. Where, for example, is analysis of Nechirvan’s remarks threatening to punish peaceful protestors demanding unpaid wages?

And where is the analysis of the crises that have beset the Kurdistan Region since the Masrour-Nechirvan duo officially took command four years ago? Yes, both Masrour and Nechirvan can blame Baghdad, but if Kurds no longer accept their leaders’ blanket castigation of Baghdad, why would American, British, and French scholars of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan? A far more honest approach would be to analyze where Nechirvan fell short and where Baghdad truly is to blame. Are the Western scholars praising Nechirvan unaware that it was his decision to unilaterally export Iraqi Kurdistan’s oil—a move that ignited disputes with Baghdad and led both to a Paris arbitration court’s award in Baghdad’s favor and a suspension of oil sales through Turkey—that now decimates the Kurdish economy?

Nor is there any analysis about whether Nechirvan shares the blame for parliament’s suspension, unprecedented public discontent, or the deterioration of public services. Perhaps one of Nechrivan’s hagiographers might have asked why, with workers going unpaid, Nechirvan built a complex whose grounds are more than four times larger than the White House? Or why when drinking water is scarce in Erbil, Nechirvan’s complex has over ten wells? Nechirvan’s over-the-top public expenditure is symptomatic of a larger problem: As he and Masrour compete for prestige, each treats the public purse as a personal slush fund. They both blur the boundaries between public interests and private gain. If Nechirvan truly embodied the democratic, visionary, and economically liberal that hagiographic academics and think tankers paint, Iraqi Kurdistan would be a far different place today. Surely, no speech trumps a legacy of sixteen years as regional prime minister?

There is a reason why Nechirvan has hemorrhaged legitimacy. While Nechirvan’s sycophants say he is Endaziyari Awedani (“the Architect of Prosperity”), most Kurds now call him Endaziyari Kawlkari (“the Architect of Destruction”). It is this sentiment that Nechirvan cynically uses foreign scholars to counter.

It is astounding that scholars of Iraq and tenured professors do not recognize a pattern in which Iraqi politicians often call for new political deals in their speeches. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did it. So did Haider Abadi and Mustafa al-Kadhimi. Even the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did it. Do American, British, and French scholars or Turkish journalists really believe Nechirvan is different?

Contributors to the Road Map for Peace embarrass themselves in other ways. It is a misrepresentation to frame the Kurdistan Regional Government’s issues with Baghdad as primarily ethnic. Certainly, other Kurdish parties disagree. The heart of their disputes is constitutional, and the Barzanis have deliberately escalated many of these issues. Flippant remarks declaring, “Baghdad is bankrupt” aggravate the situation when both Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government needed to cooperate to resolve the financial crisis and pursue the war on terror.

For scholars to accept remuneration and/or free travel in exchange for contributions makes matters worse. It makes a mockery of pro forma think tank claims that they do not receive foreign money. Perhaps institutionally they do not, but if scholars do on an individual basis, that violates the spirit if not the letter of think tank claims. Cynicism is rife in Erbil precisely because the leadership often funds praise and encourages sycophancy. To then equate poorly articulated Kurdish statements as “strategic vision” is farcical.

The Barzanis have had their time. Cheap theatrics may assuage politicians’ egos, but they diminish those scholars and journalists who allow Kurdish politicians to use them. If any road maps are needed, they are a path to good governance and reform on one hand, and a process to restore stolen assets to the Kurdish people on the other.

Kamal Chomani is a non-resident fellow at the Kurdish Peace Institute.

Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Shutterstock.

Last year, North Korea’s marked increase in missile launches was widely interpreted as a bid to sharpen its capability to target South Korea with tactical nuclear weapons. Aided in part by Washington’s preoccupation with the Ukraine war and Taiwan Strait tensions, this surge in testing has persisted. This has been further exacerbated by China and Russia’s veto of United Nations sanctions, effectively giving North Korea free rein to test any weapons and launch any missiles it desired. One year later, we are witnessing a seismic shift in North Korea’s enhanced ability to threaten major American cities, from Los Angeles to New York, covering both coasts and from south to north. This development, alarming yet frequently underplayed, brings forth complex and troubling questions. Has Washington consistently underestimated North Korea’s missile prowess and its limited policy resource allocation, thereby endangering American security? Crucially, due to inadequate policy engagement, Washington might eventually find itself forced to consider a strong preemptive kinetic response. Such an action could not only devastate North Korea but also plunge the region into chaos.

North Korea’s Dramatic Leap in Its ICBM Capabilities

In the intricate landscape of twenty-first-century geopolitics, the allure of focusing on palpable threats often overshadows the steady drumbeats of persistent challenges. North Korea, with its familiar pattern of bluster followed by conciliatory gestures, epitomizes this latter category. Yet, a myopic view of Kim Jong-un’s Hermit Kingdom, especially in light of its burgeoning nuclear and missile prowess, risks destabilizing not just the immediate region but the very architecture of the global order. As North Korea’s nuclear arsenal grows and diversifies, the threat it poses to its neighbors and, more alarmingly, to the U.S. mainland, becomes more tangible with each missile test. For a long time, this threat was acknowledged but largely seen as a future concern. Now, Washington’s policy neglect may have brought us past the tipping point, as North Korea has the kinetic capability to target the entire United States. 

On July 12, in response to the U.S. reconnaissance flight over North Korea’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Pyongyang launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Its landing in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) was anticipated, but the trajectory raised concerns among military experts. 

Startling details surfaced. Both South Korean and Japanese militaries confirmed the missile’s origin from the North Korean capital. Despite a high launch angle, it reached 3,738 miles (6,000 km) in altitude and traveled approximately 621 miles (1,000 km) before descending. The missile remained airborne for seventy-four minutes, surpassing the earlier record of seventy-one minutes set by a launch earlier in the year. Analyzing these specifics, Japan’s Ministry of Defense suggests that, depending on the warhead’s weight, its maximum range could exceed 9,320 miles (15,000 km) when launched at a typical ICBM trajectory—encompassing the whole U.S. mainland. North Korea’s audacious test follows three other ICBM tests conducted earlier this year and as many as seven last year. Each test demonstrated progressively enhanced capabilities. The latest ICBM is designed to carry up to four warheads per missile. Many experts also posit that the missile utilized a more advanced solid fuel, which provides both increased mobility and reduced detectability compared to its liquid-fueled counterparts. 

The implications are clear: the ground-based interceptors that the United States has stationed in Alaska and California may no longer provide the robust defense they once did. If North Korea were to launch a dozen of these missiles, it could potentially overwhelm the United States’ defense systems. It’s tempting to downplay North Korea’s achievements, emphasizing that there’s still a time gap between technical achievements and actual deployment. This sentiment is compounded by Washington’s desire to maintain focus on Ukraine without distractions. Yet, informed circles are increasingly ringing cautionary bells. Dennis Wilder, a former CIA deputy assistant director for East Asia and the Pacific, noted, “This is a neglected problem in East Asia. I believe it holds more potential for a crisis than even the Taiwan Strait situation.” 

Then, on September 8, North Korea launched a new tactical nuclear attack submarine in a ceremony attended by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, calling it “the beginning of a new chapter” for its military. Some American observers were quick to point to the old Soviet-designed Romeo-class submarine and belittle it as “Frankensub.” However, there might still be a tendency to underestimate Kim’s unwavering ambition to develop a nuclear-armed navy as a countermeasure against the United States and its Asian allies. North Korea is actively enhancing its nuclear capabilities, consistent with its public declarations. “When it comes to weapons technology development, North Korea is growing increasingly confident,” retired Lieutenant General In-Bum Chun shared with me during a research interview. He emphasized that, given North Korea’s technical confidence in nuclear weaponry, the country is now rapidly diversifying its arsenal—from ICBMs to miniaturized nuclear devices and nuclear submarines. In a further show of defiance, North Korea now publicly threatens to deploy nuclear weapons during U.S.-South Korea military drills. Reacting to North Korea’s unwavering advancement in its nuclear weapons program, South Korea’s Yoon Suk-yeol administration has highlighted North Korea’s augmented nuclear and missile capabilities as the “most pressing challenge” facing the region.

Washington’s Potential Response to North Korea’s Nuclear Capabilities

Over the years, U.S. strategy toward North Korea has oscillated between diplomacy and stern warnings, predominantly being reactive. The strategy largely hinged on China, North Korea’s main ally and trade partner, to rein in its unpredictable neighbor. However, Beijing has generally prioritized peninsular stability over denuclearization despite often disapproving of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. This stance has empowered North Korea. Now, with missiles that can technically reach the United States, Washington might feel pressured to act. But decisions to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear abilities could cause immense collateral damage and regional upheaval. This is not a hypothetical situation.

In 1994, Washington contemplated a surgical strike on North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear site. This was avoided through former President Jimmy Carter’s personal intervention with Kim Il-sung in Pyongyang. In 2017, President Donald Trump publicly threatened North Korea with total destruction. Amid escalating tensions with Kim Jong-un, Trump even mused about using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and deflecting blame. South Korea, directly in North Korea’s line of sight, would suffer most in a U.S.-North Korea conflict. Then-South Korean president Moon Jae-in, clearly concerned, remarked, “War must not break out again on the Korean Peninsula” during a dinner in Seoul he hosted for Trump.

An unprovoked strike on North Korea would have cascading consequences. Besides the immediate humanitarian catastrophe, the geopolitical fallout would be vast. It could trigger a full-fledged conflict on the Korean Peninsula, roping in South Korea, China, Japan, and perhaps Russia. This turmoil could unpredictably reshape regional dynamics, possibly diminishing U.S. influence in Asia and complicating its strategic approach toward China. The move might also fray global alliances, with allies potentially reluctant to back a preemptive attack.

The Perils of Neglect

The above scenario underscores the perils of neglect. Over the years, the global community has hoped to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and sporadic engagement. Although these measures provided short-lived respite, they didn’t ensure a long-term solution.

Ignoring North Korea might lead not only to a nuclear-armed rogue state but also to an inherently unstable Northeast Asia. It’s time to rethink strategy by emphasizing engagement, understanding the Kim regime’s entrenched insecurities, and formulating a plan ensuring enduring peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The challenges ahead are immense, but the stakes are too high for passive or complacent behavior.

While some analysts argue the window for North Korean diplomacy is swiftly narrowing, a stronger case exists for redefining our “diplomatic engagement” aim. Not as unrealistic denuclearization, but as a more feasible “risk management,” similar to the Biden administration’s recent “de-risking“ approach to China. This strategy pivot led to high-level dialogues aiming to avoid miscalculations and potential conflict.

This engagement shift would not just present a more practical approach to Pyongyang but would also transition away from the increasingly lofty goal of denuclearization without matching it with commensurate policy investment. The Camp David summit by the United States, South Korea, and Japan, held in August 2023, calls for “complete denuclearization of North Korea.” Yet, without outreach for engagement, dialogue, and negotiation with North Korea, such a resolution will not materialize. Regrettably, at present, Washington seems hesitant to adopt this perspective. For the sake of U.S. security and global stability, it’s imperative for the United States to present a persuasive argument.

Seong-Hyon Lee, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations and a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard University Asia Center.

Image: Shutterstock.

As a Chinese spy balloon sailed over the United States in February 2023, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin urgently attempted to contact his counterparts in Beijing. Yet phones rang in empty rooms for several hours, and the Pentagon’s calls went unanswered. It was not the first time Chinese military leaders and policymakers ignored American hotline calls during enhanced tension. It was instead only the latest part of a dangerous pattern of behavior that risks the deterioration of Sino-American relations.

A hotline is only one small component of a nation’s diplomatic repertoire, but it can be the most important in times of crisis. Hotlines allow policymakers to converse quickly and directly with one another, building up personal trust between heads of state as they navigate flashpoints bilaterally. They are also crucial for providing detail, clarification, and explanations, thus enhancing understanding and helping to avoid accidental misconceptions about the other’s intentions. In short, they can be a fundamental tool for managing risk, avoiding escalation, and maintaining international security.

The history of Cold War diplomacy only emphasizes how crucial hotlines can be. After the high drama of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which saw messages take hours to reach their recipients, the United States and the Soviet Union wisely established a hotline link to transfer written messages swiftly between the two nation’s capitals. The Washington-Moscow hotline did not eradicate future tensions but was an essential brake on the erosion of relations. Over the next three decades, it would prove its worth several times.

During the Six-Day War of June 1967, Washington and Moscow frequently sent messages over the hotline as combat in the Middle East developed. These messages included the Soviets’ assurances they were attempting to solve the conflict diplomatically and the Johnson administration’s clarification on the maneuvers of the Sixth Fleet. When fighting broke out in the region just a few years later in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the hotline again displayed its significance, as it would during numerous other Cold War flashpoints worldwide.

During times of international crisis, we must view hotlines as enduring and indispensable links between feuding powers rather than redundant relics from a bygone Cold War era. While one may debate the accuracy of the ‘Second Cold War’ analogy, past hotline discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union demonstrate that it is crucial to maintain communication between Beijing and Washington today.

Hotlines exist between the United States and China at the executive and military levels. Grounded in their experiences in the twentieth century, various U.S. administrations have long viewed hotlines as a vital diplomatic asset and have been motivated to use them during contemporary crises, either with China or other strategic competitors. Although the Chinese Communist Party leadership has so far shown an aversion to managing escalation bilaterally with the United States, frequently leaving calls unanswered over the past few decades. Beijing ignored American attempts to communicate during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Twelve calls were made by the Bush administration during the Hainan Island incident in 2001, with each of them similarly being snubbed. The same would happen again during numerous other episodes, and Xi Jinping and other Chinese policymakers have rebuffed modest proposals for more active hotline discussions.

Analysts have noted that Chinese officials hold suspicions over why American leaders would want to utilize hotlines, viewing them as little other than an instrument for the United States to surreptitiously normalize certain Indo-Pacific region operations. More dangerously, they also believe they can find strategic advantage in avoiding hotline conversations and the ambiguity this helps create. But regardless of the differences of opinion, the Cold War shows bilateral crisis management is still essential.

As anxiety continues to mount over the fate of Taiwan and the South China Sea, the United States must continue to pressure the Communist Party leadership to come to the phone more promptly. Complaining after the fact isn’t enough. It should now be a significant part of U.S. foreign policy to construct a more effective hotline dialogue with Beijing. American officials must explain that the ambiguity the Chinese leaders seek during a crisis is dangerous.

With the rise of artificial intelligence and the ubiquity of disinformation, serious miscalculations over specific naval movements or espionage incidents have become more likely. A lack of communication could result in a dangerous slide toward military or nuclear confrontation. In a geopolitical climate where atomic threats have again begun to be bandied around, Beijing and Washington will find that talking is the best medicine.

Ronan P. Mainprize is a PhD Candidate at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom. His research specializes in intelligence, U.S. foreign policy, and international security. He can be followed on Twitter @RonanPMainprize.

Image: Shutterstock.

When I was Acting Secretary and later Secretary of the Air Force in 1999, the country suffered one of the worst strings of space launch failures in American history. Six serious failures occurred in just nine months, with a loss of satellites worth over $3 billion. To say the obvious, these failures were not insured, so replacing the lost satellites required a significant shift in already strained post-Cold War funding. It is not an exaggeration to say that leaking roofs were required to seep longer to fund replacement satellites.

These launch failures also interrupted a decade-long effort to replace aging satellites whose replacement had been delayed by the loss of Challenger in 1986 and by the need to generate modified or new unmanned rockets to launch satellites originally intended for the Space Shuttle. While the failures occurred across a range of rockets, launch sites, and failure modes, the fact that they all happened within a short span was very troubling and suggested there might be interrelated root causes. Complacency arising from a decade of successes was thought to be one such cause.

Thankfully, the Air Force was as resilient then as it is now and applied its time-tested safety practices to emerge with better launch systems than ever before. Specifically, the Air Force stood down future launches until it conducted a Broad Area Review (BAR) under the leadership of former Chief of Staff Larry Welch, who had been instrumental in rebuilding unmanned space launches after the Challenger failure.

The BAR investigated the string of launch failures and determined the best path forward. It comprised a team of experts from within government and industry to determine the root causes, technical and procedural solutions, and the timelines needed to return each existing system to the launch pad. Perhaps equally important, the BAR recommended the path forward for the nascent Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program that added government oversight (and significant cost) to increase mission safety and reliability as it fielded those systems.

While the BAR did not find complacency, it did find that a combination of launch success and pressure to reduce launch costs had resulted in a hollowing out of engineering, test, and mission assurance functions across manufacturers. In addition, even though launches on legacy systems would occur for another decade, the Air Force itself had also removed many resources from overseeing contractor engineering and safety decisions.

Whereas contractors and launch teams had achieved production quality, cost efficiencies, and safety through learning curve advantages over some 200 launches in the prior decade, production had largely ended, and the Air Force began redirecting personnel to future programs like EELV. Correcting these deficiencies at a high cost and refocusing on risk management created a failure-free launch record for all the legacy systems through their ends of life and set the preconditions for over two decades of successful EELV launches.

Not long after legacy rockets returned to service, however, the EELV experienced a financial crisis of its own. The original plan was to have two contractors provide a family of launch systems.  This plan was premised on the belief that commercial launch was about to explode and would give both government and commercial users substantial cost savings while furthering assured access to space if one set of vehicles faltered.  But commercial space demand cratered, leading to the abandonment of one EELV system and the rationing of launches between the other systems.

Now, are the lessons of over two decades of failure-free launch being lost?

This prospect is undoubtedly a concern. The Space Force recently proposed modifications to its procurement for national security space launches that may disrupt the entire program. The changes emphasize a more hands-off formula rather than the contractor and government approach created by the BAR, which focused on mission assurance, reliability, and redundancy.  Its proposed launch procurement changes risk upending America’s assured access to space and its ability to fend off America’s foreign adversaries (particularly China and Russia) in that domain.

In a recently revised Request for Proposal, the Space Force opened high-risk missions in the National Security Space Launch System (NSSL), America’s most consequential space launch program, up to a third provider, even though, as things stand today, only two contractors have experience successfully launching our nation’s most valuable national security satellites into challenging orbits. Only two have gone through the whole mission assurance cycle mandated by the BAR, which has undergone continuous improvement over the last two decades. This procurement change also raises the question of whether commercial launch demand will now efficiently sustain three providers of launch vehicles when, in the recent past, it could not support two. To understand how radical this procurement change is, one must consider that the Space Force previously mandated that Lane 2 contractors meet nine reference orbits at the program’s start. Now, it has dropped that requirement and will have a contractor that has not met a single reference orbit service Lane 2 launches.

While Lane 1 of the NSSL (the less national security-intensive missions) is already open to all providers and includes annual on-ramping opportunities to accommodate emerging companies as their products reach market readiness, Lane 2 is different. Lane 2 provides assured access to space for critical national security missions, which tend to involve the most expensive satellites. Its launches can mean life or death for the country in the face of China and Russia’s increasingly hostile space motives, partnerships, and general positioning. To think that a contractor that does not presently have a working launch vehicle, nor have any experience launching national security assets into space, can now receive NSSL Lane 2 contracts is not just alarming, it flies in the face of the lessons of the BAR, which made it clear that highly disciplined joint contractor and government oversight of space programs from inception through the establishment of safe operations is critical to avoiding launch failures.

In addition, the economic efficiency of the new approach is not apparent. The NSSL’s competitive, results-driven contracting standards have already saved taxpayers $7 billion. It is one of the most successful space programs the United States has ever overseen, with not a single failure occurring in nearly 100 launches. Adding a third provider to Lane 2 missions would change the economics entirely and could increase costs by $5 billion (onboarding new providers is expensive). To offset some of this cost, the Space Force proposes to cap launch service support to each Lane 2 contractor at $100 million annually, even though such price caps risk further erosion of mission assurance by opening the door for contractor cost-cutting, as was the case in 1998–99.

Moreover, what if commercial demand doesn’t materialize or shifts to lower-cost systems from other countries? Then what will become of a third provider?  Will mission requirements be salami-sliced to keep three providers operating at significant government expense, as they once were in EELV?

The old cliché is that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Now is not the time for the Space Force to repeat the past. The last time the United States lived through a period of uncertain, unreliable access to space, China and Russia were not nearly as space-motivated or capable as they are today, with China and Russia now seeking to beat the United States in space and land.  In some respects, China and Russia, which have increasingly begun partnering to operationalize space as a military domain, are already ahead of the United States, with the 2022 State of the Space Industrial Base report indicating that China may soon eclipse the United States in orbit.

The Space Force should not abandon the policies and practices that brought space launch to where it is today. Replaying 1998 and 1999 now risks launch failures and irreparable long-term effects on our nation’s operations in space.  

Whitten Peters served as the 19th Secretary of the United States Air Force and the chair of the Air and Space Force Association.

Slovakia will hold elections at the end of this month, just over thirty years after securing an elusive permanent independence. Unelected governments have led the country for nearly a year, as former Prime Minister Eduard Heger resigned following a vote of no-confidence in December 2022, and the country’s president appointed a caretaker “technocratic” government in May of this year.

Three-time former Prime Minister Robert Fico and his Smer – sociálna demokracia (Direction – Social Democracy) party has led polls for months. Fico is a populist who is difficult to categorize ideologically. He possesses undeniable political skills but holds significant baggage from his previous tenures in office. Even if he secures the highest vote tally, he might struggle to find willing coalition partners. In deeply fragmented Slovak politics, coalitions of several parties are often required to form a government, and this year figures to be no different.

Americans should take note of the outcome in Slovakia this year, as it could portend the voting behavior of a war-weary, economically encumbered populace ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The State of Slovakia

To the extent that Western media analyze the Slovak elections at all, they tend to present events through a distorted lens. They assume a successful outcome for Fico and Smer would signal alignment with neighbors Hungary and Poland, which are often at odds with the Brussels political establishment (in fact, Fico has a track record of strained relations with Hungary and Slovakia’s Hungarian minority community.) They also project a Russia-hyperfocus onto Slovak voters. Neither is accurate or helpful for understanding the country.

Consider a few examples. The Washington Post’s Loveday Morris asserted, “Within the E.U., some officials and diplomats voice concern about a leader who might align with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban,” and described Fico’s strong polling as “a pro-Russian tide in Slovakia.” Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s Andrea Dudik and Daniel Hornak fancifully warned that a Fico regime would “add a new challenge to Western allies,” labeled Orban “an old ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin,” and suggested a Fico-led Slovakia “could be isolated within the EU along with Orban.”

Slovak voters, though, are concerned primarily with matters closer to home, and Slovak politicians are campaigning accordingly. If the war next door affects voter behavior, it is overwhelmingly through its economic ramifications.

The country is buckling under inflation that has reached crisis proportions. It soared to over 12 percent in 2022 and is forecast to tally at just under 11 percent this year. It is currently over twice the eurozone average. Food prices are particularly onerous. Ukrainian agricultural imports are burdening Slovak farmers.

Proud of their eurozone membership and remarkable economic management after starting from scratch in 1993, Slovaks grapple with the fact that their GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, has fallen behind those of Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and EU economic laggard Romania. Slovaks perceive not only that they are no longer catching up economically to the West; they are, in fact, falling further behind.

This unease is reflected in the ongoing political campaigning. Ads for Peter Pellegrini, another former prime minister, simply ask: “Do you want cheaper energy?” The Christian Democrats assert, “You deserve better.” Fico declares, “People deserve security.”

Amid this economic turmoil, Slovaks are tiring of the war’s repercussions. The unelected caretaker government has proceeded with arms shipments and economic sanctions, despite the deprivations at home and the relative unpopularity of these measures among voters. Public outcry ensued after the government donated more than a dozen military aircraft to Ukraine but did not provide direct air rescue to Slovaks stranded in Greece during this summer’s wildfires. The chasm between the current political powers-that-be and the people is palpable.

A Bellwether Election

Onlookers can view this election as a bellwether for two reasons.

First, Slovakia’s political environment has developed differently from its neighbors, and therefore tends to defy standard ideological classification.

In Czechia, Hungary, and Poland, communist-era elites morphed into the democratic era’s establishment Left, and they largely oversaw accession to the EU, NATO, and the free market. Nationalists and Christian democrats preserved a broad anti-communist front, and this morphed into the modern establishment Right.

Slovakia, lacking long experience with nationhood, first had to learn to direct its own affairs from Bratislava. Furthermore, communism enjoys a different legacy here. Many Slovaks associate the communist regime with industrialization and modernization, while their more industrialized neighbors remember stagnation. The communist atrocities of 1956, 1968, and 1980 resonate less vividly here than in Budapest, Prague, or Warsaw. For several reasons, the country’s nationalists and Christian democrats did not unite politically. The legacy of supporting or rejecting independence in the early 1990s still matters.

This results in fractured political movements that have elements of both Left and Right and usually fail to gain anything close to an outright majority in parliament. It makes for difficult governance, but it allows Slovakia to escape the simplistic ideological rhetoric of Western observers. If Slovak voters offer a pronouncement on the war, it cannot be viewed through a standard ideological lens.

The second reason the Slovak elections are a bellwether is due to the way the country’s prevailing historical and geopolitical forces lend themselves to status quo preservation.

More than most in the region, Slovak geopolitical strategy privileges the status quo. Unlike Hungary, which lost two-thirds of its territory after World War I, and Poland, which can still observe Stalin’s fingerprints on its geopolitical realities, Slovakia did quite well when it gained its long-awaited independence. No significant Slovak population lives beyond the country’s borders in neighboring nations. The minority Hungarian community is steadily becoming “Slovakized” or moving to Hungary or elsewhere in the West. Despite the war in a neighboring country, Slovaks feel militarily sheltered. There remains the specter of losing territory to Hungary or being forcefully reunited with Czechia, both of which happened in the last century, but it is not an immediate pressing reality.

This all results in a minimal appetite for clashing with Brussels or Washington. The longer the status quo prevails, the better for Slovakia’s hard-won independence. Thus, if Slovaks challenge what is regarded as the Brussels-prescribed order on a major issue like the war in Ukraine, the international community ought to take notice.

An October Surprise

The October elections in neighboring Poland will garner more international attention, but they arguably will prove less of a bellwether for the United States and other Western countries. The country, after all, has endured centuries of Russian atrocities and shares borders with both Russia and Belarus. These distinctions do not apply to Slovakia.

If Fico and other war-skeptic forces triumph in Slovakia this month, Western media will turn to regular and overused explanations: that the results stem from a local variation of “Trumpism,” or are because of “Russian propaganda” and “democratic backsliding.” The informed observer will note a simpler explanation: people deserve security.

Péter Szitás is a research fellow at the Danube Institute. He is a former adjunct professor at J. Selye University in Komárno, Slovakia, and the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia. He holds a Ph.D. in literature and a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies from Eötvös Loránd University, in Budapest, Hungary, and a Master of Arts in International Security and Defense Policy from the National University of Public Service, in Budapest, Hungary, and is a Ph.D. candidate at the latter.

Michael O’Shea is a visiting fellow at the Danube Institute. He is an alumnus of the Budapest Fellowship Program, sponsored by the Hungary Foundation and the Mathias Corvinus Collegium. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of North Carolina and a Master of Business Administration from Indiana University.

Image: Shutterstock.

Iran and China established diplomatic relations in 1971. It was a significant milestone in the relationship since the regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was a firm American partner, and China at that time was under the rule of Chairman Mao. After the Iranian revolution, the relationship saw slow progress until the 1990s, when both countries agreed to broaden their economic ties. At first glance, Iran’s theocratic regime would possess little in common with the Chinese Communist Party. However, the bilateral relationship has grown more robust over the past few years, with China becoming Iran’s preeminent economic partner and regime supporter. Realpolitik, economic benefits, and geopolitical goals compel both countries to work together, especially since both view the United States as the prime impediment to their strategic objectives.

Economic cooperation is the cornerstone of Sino-Iranian ties. China is Iran’s largest trading partner and has been increasing its investments in Iran. In March 2021, both countries signed a twenty-five-year strategic partnership agreement, amounting to $400 billion, to develop Iran’s infrastructure and transportation sectors. The deal was a substantial step forward in the partnership between the two countries. Subsequently, Chinese banks provided Iran with $10 billion in loans for power plants, railways, and other infrastructure projects. Chinese companies have helped construct a high-speed railway between Tehran and Mashhad and develop ports and airports. These investments have been vital to Iran’s modernization efforts. Iran has been under substantial U.S. pressure since President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and reimposed economic sanctions. These sanctions have made it challenging for Iran to access international markets, resulting in a recession, skyrocketing inflation, and a significant devaluation of the Iranian Rial. China stepped in and injected much-needed capital and expertise into Iran’s economy. These capital inflows have stimulated economic activity, created jobs, mitigated the impact of the sanctions, and continued the development of Iranian infrastructure. The Iranian government uses this Chinese engagement to demonstrate to its population that the country is not diplomatically isolated, thereby assuaging domestic concerns and retaining a semblance of legitimacy.

The energy sector has been a principal focus of collaboration, and Chinese companies have invested heavily in Iran’s oil and gas industry. After Washington reimposed sanctions, Iranian oil exports declined. China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, and Iran is one of China’s largest suppliers of crude oil. It has helped Iran generate sufficient revenue to withstand crippling sanctions. Iranian oil has strategic implications for China’s energy security. Iran has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, and Chinese investment in Iranian oil and gas fields provides China with a reliable energy source. Additionally, Iran is an essential partner for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese companies have planned substantial investments in Iran’s transport sector to support this endeavor. Iran’s strategic location and natural resources make it a critical partner for this initiative, as it provides a gateway to the Middle East and Europe.

The chief geopolitical factor pushing Iran and China together is their opposition to American hegemony. Both countries oppose American unilateralism and support a “multipolar” world order. Consequently, they have strengthened political ties and worked together in international forums, such as the UN, to promote common interests. China played a crucial role in diffusing Saudi-Iranian tensions by presiding over a landmark summit in March, demonstrating Beijing’s rising clout in the region. This is especially significant since Saudi-American ties are at a relatively low point. Recently, the BRICS invited Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to join. The message reverberating in the region is that while America might be withdrawing, the Chinese are just getting started.

China and Iran have also increased their military collaboration. Both countries signed a military cooperation agreement in 2021 and have conducted joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman, marking a significant advance in military cooperation. Chinese military expertise played a role in the Iranian hypersonic missile program, much to the chagrin of the United States. Nevertheless, sales of advanced equipment such as stealth fighters are improbable. Chinese ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also significant, which would factor into China’s strategic deliberations. Beijing will deepen ties with Tehran, but not at the expense of its relations with the Saudis and Emiratis.

Additionally, China has not waded into the complex conflicts of the Middle East, such as Iranian-Israeli hostility, and there is no evidence to indicate Chinese backing for Iranian adventurism and arming of proxy militaries. Beijing would prefer that Washington remain tied down in the Middle East and will support the Iranians on the political front. However, such patronage might not extend to a conflict with Israel or Saudi Arabia. A major regional war would disrupt oil flows, disrupting the economy.

Despite opportunities, there are also potential challenges to the relationship between Iran and China. Iran’s domestic politics include periodic protests against the regime. Iran has a complex political system, and there are often tensions between different factions within the government, which creates uncertainty for Chinese investors. In addition, corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies in Iran can make it difficult for foreign companies to do business. So far, the $400 billion promised in 2020 has yet to materialize.

The Sino-Iranian partnership has raised concerns among other global powers, notably the United States. Washington has expressed apprehensions about China’s growing influence in the Middle East and its support for Iran. Since the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis, relations between the United States and Iran remain contemptuous. The theological and revolutionary nature of the Iranian regime attracts few admirers in the West. The United States sees Iran’s nuclear program and its support of proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as a strategic challenge to its interests and a peril to the security of its ally, Israel. American sanctions on Iran force the regime to turn to China for support, raising American trepidations about Chinese regional designs. Therefore, the prospect of a revival in American-Iranian ties remains slim.

Meanwhile, strategic competition between the United States and China and the clash over Taiwan further exacerbate tensions. Consequently, it is self-evident that the Chinese and Iranians will find a common cause against a shared adversary, albeit with Sino-Saudi ties also featuring in Beijing’s calculus. Chinese backing has hampered American efforts to dissuade the Iranians from ceasing their nuclear program and permitted them to seek a strategic balance vis-a-vis the United States. If Sino-American ties continue to deteriorate, China might consider an “arms for oil” agreement with Iran. These weapons might compel Israel or the United States to think twice before any potential strikes on Iranian nuclear assets but will not jeopardize Saudi and Emirati security. As recent events indicate, Iran is now firmly in the Chinese camp, along with Russia and North Korea, and this partnership will be a defining feature of the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

Ahmed S. Cheema is a Senior Adviser to Pakistani Cabinet Ministers and Members of Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Relations.

Image: Shutterstock. 

The political situation for President Yoon Suk-Yeol of the Republic of Korea is challenging due to growing domestic criticism. This comes despite, and in some respects because of, his recent diplomatic accomplishments. Considering South Korea’s political environment, Washington must demonstrate that Seoul’s decision to increase mutual defense ties with the United States and engage with Japan was the right one.

Celebrating the seventieth anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, the Washington Declaration in April marked a historical milestone. The declaration between President Joe Biden and Yoon signaled a new era of economic and security cooperation between the two states. August’s trilateral summit of the United States, Japan, and Korea reaffirmed the allies’ alignment for the region’s safety and prosperity. 

The current amicable relationship between Korea and Japan, which has not appeared this rosy since the Kim-Obuchi declaration of 1998, is also noteworthy. The decision made by President Yoon to further align with the United States and Japan was not without political risks. Korea’s proximity to China and North Korea necessitates a more balanced approach toward neighboring powers. Previous Korean leaders have been cautious in taking such a dramatic step toward the United States, so they aimed to maintain a balance between the United States and China. Indeed, this was made more challenging after the trade war launched by President Donald Trump. 

Korean companies have shown strong support for Yoon’s foreign policies. Samsung, SK, LG, and Hyundai have announced approximately $250 billion in investment plans since the Biden Administration. Even though U.S. trade policy became more unpredictable since the trade war with China, Korea took a further step toward the United States, hoping that more cooperation with Washington would remove uncertainties.

There is, however, a growing feeling in South Korea that Washington has not adequately responded to Seoul’s concerted efforts. Following the Washington Declaration, South Korean businesses hoped to see some progress in the U.S. trade policies that have negatively impacted Korea. 

Despite constant efforts, uncertainties remain surrounding Electric Vehicle (EV) provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the CHIPS and Science Act, particularly regarding their preferential credits to U.S.-based manufacturers and the binding clauses for their China facilities. Washington did not consider its allies’ perspectives when crafting its trade policies.

Those who disagree with Yoon argue that Korea’s approach to the United States is highly distorted, with much given but less taken. To make matters worse, the Japanese government elevated mutual tension in August when it released the Fukushima Nuclear Plant’s wastewater into the ocean. Yoon faces difficulty bridging opposing public opinions. The fact that Yoon won the presidential election by a slight margin of 0.7 percent highlights the immediate political pressure imposed on him. The Korean economy is also under significant strain due to rapidly shifting legacy supply chains in and out of China. 

Facing this uncertain outlook, Washington should support Seoul by addressing economic issues and trade policies that have inadvertently affected it. First, Washington should expand the reach of the IRA and CHIPS Act benefits for allies. The U.S. Treasury last year made a necessary clarification by extending IRA tax credits to include leased EVs manufactured in Korea. This decision provided Hyundai the time needed to adjust its EV leasing rates from 5 percent to 30 percent before its Georgia plant, with a production capacity of 300,000 EVs, goes operational in 2025. Just as Hyundai benefited from this expansion, other Korean businesses need breathing room before their upcoming expansion in the United States.  

Second, Washington should give flexibility to allies’ legacy supply chains and exports to China. The grace period, which limits semiconductor equipment sales to China, ends in October. Korea has already made substantial investments in China, with Samsung manufacturing 40 percent of its NAND Flash Memory and SK Hynix producing 40 percent of its DRAM and 20 percent of its NAND capacity there. Extending this grace period would benefit Korea and serve U.S. interests by fortifying the solid economic foundation shared by allies. Under these circumstances, Samsung and SK Hynix would be well-positioned to increase their investments in the United States, building upon their current commitment of $222 billion and leveraging their consistent performance in the global market. In addition, Seoul needs a gradual transition in its supply chain to manage the delicate relationship with Beijing, given its geopolitical situation surrounding North Korea.

Now is an ideal time to recalibrate bilateral relations before the U.S. presidential elections and Korea’s general elections next year. Cementing recent diplomatic successes requires constant effort and a willingness to dialogue. South Korean goodwill is not assured, and Washington should not take it for granted. 

Yejoon Chung is a research associate at Harvard Business School and a young leader in the ‘3.0: The Next Generation of the U.S.-ROK Alliance Program’ at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). Yejoon holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard Kennedy School and worked at the Korea International Trade Association (KITA). The author would like to thank CSIS, KITA, Victor Cha, Evan Ramstad, Andy Lim, Jung Koo Kang, Brian Baik, and Mark Lippert for their valuable insights.

Image: Shutterstock. 

America’s partisan divide has infected the space defense policies of both the Biden and Trump Administrations. While President Joe Biden has leaned too excessively toward a dovish posture, President Donald Trump’s was too hawkish. Both administrations’ lack of desire for a practical solution could encourage China to develop and launch a “shock and awe” precursor to a campaign to seize Taiwan. This one-two punch might well be part of the operational capabilities that President Xi Jinping wants China to attain by 2027. The current course of action will render us unprepared to counter this space threat and save Taiwan.

In 1985, nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and I penned an op-ed, Arms Control That Could Work. It considered that “satellites can be anti-satellites.” We worried about the Vice President of the USSR Academy of Science Yevgeny Velikhov’s disturbing statement: “If we can dock with a satellite, then clearly we can dock with an American satellite, but a bit carelessly, and thus destroy it.” The op-ed and the study behind it proposed a solution of creating self-defense zones to provide a buffer and warning that U.S. satellites are being targeted in time to mount a defense.  

While Wohlstetter’s ideas on nuclear deterrence became the foundation of U.S. nuclear strategy, starting with the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, this proposal was not adopted. On the other hand, if this space proposal had been accepted three decades ago, the United States and international space policies would have ensured peace in that domain.

In 2001, the 164-page report of the Rumsfeld Commission assessed U.S. national security space and questioned “whether the U.S. will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce U.S. space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people—a ‘Space Pearl Harbor’—will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the U.S. Government to act.” Again, the United States neglected to act quickly to reduce vulnerability. 

President Trump envisioned that the Space Force would ensure U.S. extraterrestrial security. However, the internecine fights over how best to organize the Space Force are consuming so much financial and political capital that two of the four pillars underlying his 2018 National Space Strategy are hardly getting the attention they deserve: 1) “transform to more resilient space architectures” and 2) “strengthen U.S. and allied options to deter… and counter threats.” In sum, the Trump Administration’s program for space dominance lacks more dovish measures, such as making China’s continued participation in the lucrative Western space market dependent on its adherence to a space traffic management regime. Even if Trump’s program resulted in space resilience, it would take at least a decade to complete. By then, it might be too late.

Opposing Trump’s hawkish goal of space dominance, the Biden administration’s dovish approach focuses on passive satellite protections. The current strategy is to replace legacy satellites (those already in orbit) and their legacy-like follow-ons (those slated to be in orbit soon) composed of a small number of expensive large satellites with proliferated constellations of many cheap small satellites. The doves argue that if an adversary disables some satellites, the remaining ones can continue to perform much of the same mission. In January 2023, however, I showed that deploying proliferated constellations will be too late to replace many of the critical but vulnerable legacy constellations within this decade. Again, while this strategy is attractive and necessary, it must be supplemented by active defenses such as bodyguard spacecraft to monitor, inspect, and harmlessly move invaders out of zones established to protect our critical satellites.

Ironically, the opposite approaches of the two administrations will end with the same problem: offering a window of satellite vulnerability throughout this crucial decade. A practical solution demands the inclusion of the strategies of both administrations and both parties. 

In January 2022, China’s developing dual-use spacecraft successfully docked with its own non-responsive (dead) satellite in a geosynchronous orbit and maneuvered it to a higher orbit, less than two years behind the United States doing the same. Many space experts were surprised that China’s dual-use spacecraft capability developed so fast. Moreover, China will soon be able to manufacture 440 small satellites annually and plans to launch 13,000 satellites quickly to prevent SpaceX from hogging all the attractive low-earth orbits. Considering these developments, my joint updated study of Henry Sokolski’s China Space Wargame estimated that China could likely develop and deploy about 200 attacking spacecraft by 2026. This anti-satellite capability could catalyze China’s Taiwan “reunification” efforts.

Specifically, China could pre-position some or all of these 200 attackers next to our three dozen global-positioning-system satellites and their follow-ons at semi-geosynchronous orbits. There is currently no rule to prohibit China from doing so. Upon further command, these attackers—already at close range—could quickly and forcibly dock with our satellites and bend or disconnect antennae and solar panels, thus disabling these navigational satellites upon which military, civil, and commercial operations are all critically dependent. Alternatively, these attackers could harmlessly relocate these satellites into the wrong orbits where they can no longer perform their functions. Worse yet, there would still be plenty of leftover attackers to impair our other critical satellites serving as our eyes and ears at geosynchronous orbits and highly elliptical orbits.

At this pivotal junction, we must ward off this possibility lurking at the door of the free world without falling into the trap of ideological rigidity. Our window for action is closing, and we must take corrective steps now. 

Brian Chow is an independent policy analyst with more than 170 publications. Follow him on X at @briangchow. 

Image: Shutterstock.

This week marks the painful remembrance of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Yet, the week also shares the anniversary of the most powerful intellectual and diplomatic rebuke to the Al Qaeda worldview. Osama bin Laden attacked America for its role in the Middle East and desperately tried to whip up hatred between Westerners, Jews, Muslims, and Arabs. His death in 2011 did not end his message, but the Abraham Accords signed on September 15, 2020, have changed the lives of millions. And it has the potential, if America builds on existing achievements, to positively alter the Middle East and the wider world.

First, I am writing these lines as I shuttle between Jerusalem and Arab capitals. The Accords helped establish direct flights between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, some above Saudi airspace. In the airport lounges of Dubai, I watch ordinary Iranians and Israelis, supposedly sworn enemies, talking about their families and businesses. Trade volumes are increasing annually between Arab nations and Israel from $590 million in 2019 to $3.4 billion last year and will burgeon significantly. With 200 weekly flights between Tel Aviv, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai, more than a million Israelis have visited the United Arab Emirates. Air traffic has increased between Israel and Morocco, Jordan, and Turkey. 

Second, since 1947, Israelis have lived behind an iron curtain with little contact with their Arab and Muslim neighbors. Most Israelis, only encountering Palestinians at checkpoints, viewed Arabs with suspicion. Now, as one Israeli general explained to me, “We Israelis are wearing new glasses and seeing Arabs and Muslims as partners in peace.” In the security of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Israelis visit mosques and malls, beaches and golf courses, kosher restaurants, and even a synagogue beside churches and mosques. In Jerusalem, Israelis are stabbed and dare not enter Gaza. In the Arabian Gulf,  Israelis and Arabs dance at weddings, invest in businesses, and change school curricula to educate for a better future. As the Accords declare: “We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity.” Change takes time and leadership. What the Accords have started must continue and, in the long run, will increase the popularity of peace in Arab countries. Persuading 350 million Arabs will be a more complex challenge than 10 million Israelis, but the work has begun and requires American and regional support. 

Third, where the UAE has led, Saudi Arabia will likely follow, and now there is a serious and sustained negotiation led by the United States to make peace between Mecca and Jerusalem, Islam and Judaism, Israel and Saudi Arabia. That such a diplomatic and civilizational breakthrough is even on the negotiation table is a significant advance from the days when Osama bin Laden wrongly claimed to represent Saudi interests. Bin Laden sought to expel American and Israeli interests from the Middle East: The Saudi crown prince, Mohamed bin Salman, seeks treaty-level American security guarantees and advanced weapons systems to protect Saudi Arabia from radicals inside and outside his country. These are the corridors opened by the Abraham Accords.

Fourth, the Accords suspended Israeli annexations of disputed territories until 2024 and kept alive Palestinian dreams of a future state. That “normalization, not annexation” model is now on the table for Saudi Arabia to secure a longer term of no expansion.  Palestinian leaders from the West Bank have been meeting in Riyadh and Amman to open a new stage of respect and dignity for their people. Still, the challenge for those of us who support Jewish-Muslim coexistence is to deepen further the noble aim expressed in the Accords: “We believe that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue and that developing friendly relations among States advances the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.” In a future Palestinian state, we should imagine the presence of Jewish citizens. After all, Israel has a 20 percent Arab population.  

Fifth, for years since 9/11, Israelis and Westerners would point fingers at Arabs and Muslims and say, “Where is a real peace with Israel if you are moderate and peaceful people?” Our silence was revealing. The Abraham Accords have ended that question and allowed Muslims and Arabs to hold their heads high. But such confidence in coexistence remains fragile. Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Pakistan, Yemen, and others should end unwarranted hostility with the world’s only Jewish state. If we pursue our peaceful pathway, in time, they will join the circle of peace, too. But it won’t be free of challenges. 

The Iranian government is watching its plans for an anti-American region crumble, and it will increase its funding and terror activities to destabilize Arab governments, American interests, and Israel. Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and others across the Middle East are busy working to disrupt a Middle East aligned with America. Russia and China linger beside the Iranian clerics. But the threats to stability come from within our own side, too.

As China seeks to peel away Western allies, America must not repeat the mistake of naively promoting nation-building in Gaza, Iraq, or Egypt, where the outcome of elections is the successful mass organization of radical Islamist parties who rarely govern in a democratic—nevermind liberal—fashion. Solidifying the Abraham Accords and its vision of pluralism, progress, and peace means U.S. diplomacy must beckon more nations under the roof of a civilizational grouping that shelters our allies and partners. Building infrastructure from Dubai to Saudi Arabia to Israel to the Mediterranean, as announced at the G20 Summit last week, is a testament to what is possible. Similarly, the UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia have all requested deeper and greater American security arrangements. The US and Bahrain have signed a security and economic pact this week that shows others what is on the table for allies of America. The Abraham Accords provide the foundations for that military, economic, intellectual, and policy framework for a grand partnership between America, Israel, and fifty-two Arab and Muslim nations.

Ed Husain is the Director of the N7 Initiative, a partnership between the Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation and the Atlantic Council. Husain is also a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

Image: Shutterstock.