Agrégateur de flux

Just before the 2020 Presidential elections, I published a book—The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America—in which I laid out the deterioration of American foreign policy and what the next administration needed to do to fix it. I argued that we were at risk of stumbling into any number of avoidable wars that could seriously harm our country. Now, four years later, we may be hours or minutes away from making that fateful plunge.

As I write these words, the United States is sending considerable combat power to the Middle East in advance of a retaliatory strike by Iran against Israel. The Israeli government is warning its citizens to prepare bomb shelters and be prepared for major power outages and limited drinking water for an extended period of time. Iran is reportedly in the final stages of preparing an attack.

The perverse irony of this potential clash of titans in the Middle East is that with deft diplomacy and sober thinking, the situation could have been solved below the threshold of combat long ago. Washington and Tel Aviv, however, seem stuck on repeating all the worst of the tendencies I identified in my 2020 book. In one passage, I wrote:

One other thing I can come close to guaranteeing: if America retains our current status quo of foreign policy, if we refuse to end forever-wars, and if we fail to adopt new ways of thinking in how we engage with the world, we will fail.

This present explosion started with what many in the West believed was out of the blue on October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists burst out of Gaza’s security fences and killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers (though Israeli officials reportedly dismissed warnings of an attack a full year in advance). While Israel had every right to respond to the vicious terrorist attacks, they did not have the right to dispense with the laws of warfare in how they responded. The U.S. government was within its rights to support Israel—but it must first ensure the security of our country and avoid a war in the process.

We appear, most regrettably, on auto-pilot mode, heading into yet another Middle East war.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken told members of the G7 on Sunday that an attack could come within twenty-four hours. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin declared, without hesitation, “If Israel is attacked, we certainly will help defend Israel.” If anyone had any doubts about what he meant, Austin noted, “You saw us do that in April; you can expect to see us do that again.” The “that” to which he referred was a massive use of United States air and naval power to intercept Iran’s missile and drone retaliation for Israel’s bombing of an Iranian embassy building in Syria. 

To demonstrate that Austin’s claims are not empty, the Department of Defense has ordered the deployment of additional U.S. combat power to the region, including air and naval assets, as well as additional ground troops. An official DoD release claimed these “defensive capabilities are all in support of deterrence and de-escalation.” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said the best way to deescalate the situation “is for this ceasefire deal to come through, so we can get American hostages out, as well.”

While that briefs well, it is embarrassingly untrue, as Israel just assassinated the chief Hamas negotiator with whom ceasefire talks were ongoing. It was that assassination in the heart of Tehran, in fact, that has been the source of the looming Iranian retaliation (on top of other Israel assassinations of Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon). America may be trying to use diplomatic means to prevent an Iranian response, but our actions are making war more, not less, likely.

Emotions aside, the United States should not get involved if Israel goes to war against Iran. Israel has fought wars in its past, and we did not fight for them, yet they handled their security successfully on their own. The reason Washington provides billions in military assistance every year to Israel is to ensure they are capable of defending themselves. Those efforts have proved successful; Israel can now defend itself with or without American support. 

Iran has potent missile forces, but they are otherwise a mediocre regional military power, not at all equal to the IDF. Furthermore, Israel got into trouble in April of this year when it broke international law by attacking a target in an Iranian embassy compound, prompting an entirely predictable military response from Iran. Last week, Israel assassinated a number of high-ranking officials of both Hamas and Hezbollah in Tehran and Beirut, respectively. The importance of the targets and the politically sensitive locations of the strikes will likely spawn a military response from Iran.

Israel has an obligation to take actions that ensure its security. If Israeli leaders take risks that result in more attacks against Israel, they must be prepared to deal with that situation. What should not happen, however, is for Tel Aviv to expect the United States Armed Forces to fight alongside the IDF. Washington should not be a party in engaging in military operations that run counter to its national security objectives and could draw it into a new Middle Eastern war.

There is nothing for us to gain and everything for us to lose in fighting a war against Iran. It should be a priority for the White House only to risk losing American servicemen and women if U.S. security is put at risk, not because a foreign government, regardless of how friendly, takes action that is likely to prompt an enemy military response. We must stop choosing war—or one day, it may cost us more than we can imagine.

About the Author: Daniel L. Davis 

Daniel L. Davis is a retired Army Lt.Col with four combat deployments. He is a Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and the host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

Image: Creative Commons. 

Depuis vendredi dernier, en Turquie, les autorités bloquent l'accès au réseau social Instagram. Si aucune raison officielle n'a été clairement avancée, cette interdiction est intervenue après des accusations de censure portées par Ankara contre la plate-forme américaine à la suite de l’assassinat par Israël du chef politique du Hamas, Ismaïl Haniyeh. Ce lundi 5 août, dans un discours, le président turc Erdogan a semblé confirmer les motivations politiques derrière cette décision. Il a critiqué les plateformes de réseaux sociaux, les accusant de « museler le peuple palestinien ». Une décision qui provoque la colère de nombreux utilisateurs.

TikTok s’engage à retirer définitivement de l’Union européenne son application TikTok Lite, qui récompense en monnaie virtuelle les utilisateurs pour le temps passé sur le réseau social chinois. La nouvelle a été annoncée ce lundi 5 août par la commission européenne et c’est un premier résultat significatif pour le règlement européen sur les services numériques.  

The Chinese military is testing a new tank that could be used in a potential future invasion of Taiwan.

Although it is unclear where the new armored vehicle is in its development, the project falls under a wider effort by the Chinese military to modernize its arsenal as Beijing is becoming more assertive in the Indo-Pacific and around the world.

A New Chinese Battle Tank

Back in May, a series of images surfaced on Chinese social media showing what are likely two variants of a new Chinese tank.

The images showed two tanks moving in the streets of Baotou, the largest urban center in Inner Mongolia. Based on the imagery, it is very likely that the two vehicles belong to the same type of tank but are different variants. For example, judging from the pictures, it looks like one of the armored vehicles packs a 125mm main gun, while the second has a 105mm main gun.

Moreover, the two tanks weren’t towed and were moving on their power, indicating advanced development, at least in the engine/motor.

According to reports, the new tank will likely sport anti-drone technology in order to deal with the prevalent threat of unmanned aerial systems on the modern battlefield. The war in Ukraine has shown that drones can be extremely deadly, and only the right kinetic and electronic warfare countermeasures can defeat them.

It is likely that the Chinese military is using parts and technology of the Type 15 light tank in its development of the new tank. The Type 15 went into full production in 2015 and is designed as a lighter tank option for difficult operational environments like mountains and wetlands.

Chinese Military Development

For decades, Beijing chose an unconventional path to develop its military capabilities. Instead of relying on domestic ingenuity and science, successive Chinese governments sought to steal foreign military technology and replicate it domestically. Surprisingly, this strategy has worked very well thus far, and the Chinese military is brimming with weapon systems and munitions that are based on foreign designs.

For example, the Type 99 main battle tank of the Chinese military is largely based on the Russian T-72 tank. Similarly, the J-20 Chengdu stealth fighter jet shares an uncanny similarity with the American F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet.

In the defense context, what China has in resourcefulness and vision it lacks in innovation. For decades, Beijing has stolen the blueprints of weapon systems and munitions and recreated them in its laboratories and factories. Slam a new name and a couple of changes, and voila, the Chinese military has a new main battle tank, fighter jet, destroyer, etc. That strategy worked well for as long as China was behind. But now Beijing is catching or has caught up, and the pressure is on now to create something new that can’t be stolen because it doesn’t exist. Naturally, there is some skepticism as to the extent to which the Chinese defense industry can innovate and produce something new.

About the Author: 

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: In a hypothetical 1988 naval battle, the USS Iowa and a Soviet Kirov-class battlecruiser clash in a fight for naval supremacy.

The Kirov, equipped with advanced missiles, would likely strike first from long range, potentially crippling the Iowa before it could get close enough to use its massive 16-inch guns.

USS Iowa vs. Soviet Kirov: Who Wins in a 1988 Naval Clash?

While the Iowa might survive the initial attack, its ability to retaliate would be limited, forcing the Kirov to retreat. The battle highlights the evolution of naval warfare, where missile technology can neutralize even the most formidable traditional battleships.

It’s 1988 in our fictional scanerio. World War Three has begun, with the armies of the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact pouring over the Inter-German Border. Their destination: the Rhine River and beyond, dealing NATO a knockout blow that will end the war.

Meanwhile at sea, an equally titanic battle is about to take place. A Soviet Kirov-class battlecruiser, attempting to intercept a U.S. Navy carrier battle group, is intercepted by the battleship USS Iowa. The biggest ship-against-ship battle since the World War Two is about to begin. Who wins?

Built in the late 1980s, the Kirov-class battlecruisers were designed—like much of the Soviet navy at the time—to neutralize American carrier battle groups during warfare. American aircraft carriers were a threat to not only the Soviet mainland but also Moscow’s nuclear missile submarines, and were to be taken out as quickly as possible. A secondary mission of the Kirov class was as commerce raider, designed to cut the flow of American and Canadian ground reinforcements to the battleground in Europe.

The Kirov class were the largest surface warships built since the end of World War II. Each displaced twenty-four thousand tons and measured 826 feet long—nearly as long as an aircraft carrier. Nuclear powered, they could cruise indefinitely at speeds of up to thirty-two knots.

The purpose of the battlecruisers was to attack, and they were well suited for the task. Each carried twenty enormous P-700 Granit antiship missiles. Each, a Granit missile weighed more than fifteen thousand pounds. This was enough to include 1,653-pound high explosive warhead, enough fuel to give it a range of three hundred miles at Mach 2.5, and a both inertial and active radar guidance. Initial targeting data would be provided by the space-based Legenda satellite targeting system, shore-based aircraft, shipboard helicopters or the battlecruiser itself.

Granit was unique among Cold War–era antiship missiles in having an early networking capability. One missile per salvo rises higher than the rest, providing radar targeting information to the rest of the missiles though a network. If that missile was shot down, another would rise to take its place.

The Kirov cruisers were also designed to be self sufficient in anti-air weapons, the overall armament forming a layered defense system. Each carried 96 S-300F long-range surface to air missiles, a naval adaptation of the land-based S-300 system. The ships also carried 192 3K95 short-range surface-to-air missiles based on the Tor, and forty 4K33 missiles based on the Osa. As a last resort, the ships had six AK-630 close-in weapon systems equipped with thirty-millimeter gatling guns.

Four Kirov-class battlecruisers were built: Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin and Yuri Andropov.

Built in the 1940s, the Iowa-class battleships were designed to be fast fleet battleships, capable of chasing down and engaging enemy battleships such as the famed Yamato class of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Although the Iowas never engaged another battleship, they provided naval gunfire support for U.S. ground forces during World War, the Korean War, Vietnam, and off the coast of Lebanon in 1983.

The Iowa’s main armament consisted of three massive gun turrets, each housing three sixteen-inch guns. Each gun could heave a one thousand nine hundred pound armor-piercing shell to a range of twenty miles. The guns could make quick work of any modern warship, except for perhaps another battleship—but they have to get the target in range first.

The Iowa ships were heavily armored, as battleships should be, with just over a foot of steel protection at the waterline. Bulkheads were protected by eleven inches of steel, and the main guns had nearly twenty inches of steel armor. The ships were powered by four steam turbines, giving them a top speed of 32.5 knots.

In the early 1980 all four battleships—Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin—were returned to service and a number of upgrades were performed. Four of the ten dual five-inch gun mounts were removed, and it in their place sixteen Harpoon antiship missiles were installed. First deployed in 1977, the turbojet-powered, radar-guided anti-ship missiles pack a powerful 488-pound warhead. In addition to the Harpoons the Iowa class were fitted with thirty-two Tomahawk cruise missiles and four Phalanx CIWS close-in weapons systems.

Back to our duel. In our scenario, let’s assume that each ship knows the location of the other at three hundred miles. At this range, the Iowa class is at a disadvantage: its longest range weapons, the thirty-two Tomahawk missiles, are land attack missiles and useless against the Kirov.

Kirov, on the other hand, launches all twenty of its Granit missiles. . . and then retreats. The battlecruiser has used up its entire complement of offensive weapons on a single massive blow and has nothing substantial left to continue the fight with. (While it still has a pair of 130-millimeter dual-purpose guns, it would be suicidal to get in close enough to use them, given Iowa’s overwhelming gun armament.)

Two of the Granit missiles fail to launch, or malfunction and fall into the sea, leaving eighteen streaking towards the American battleship. Iowa’s deficiency in air defense armament means that it has only two Phalanx CIWS guns to shoot down the Granits. Its SLQ-32 active radar jammers and Mark 36 SRBOC chaff launchers attempt to spoof the Granit’s active radar guidance systems.

It’s impossible to say how many of the eighteen remaining missiles would have gotten past Iowa’s Phalanx gatling guns, radar jamming and chaff dispersal. For the sake of the scenario, let’s assume nine missiles breach Iowa’s defenses. The mighty battleship’s armor was formidable, designed to shrug off sixteen-inch armor-piercing rounds, so it’s likely it would fare pretty well against a Mach 1.6 missile with a simple 1.5 ton high explosive warhead. The Iowa’s main guns were also heavily armored, as were the magazines and the engine spaces.

Iowa would sustain damage, but how much? Let’s assume two of the main gun turrets are knocked out of action, but one turret is still functional and the engines are undamaged. Three sixteen inch guns are still good enough to kill the Kirov but even under ideal circumstances, Iowa is only half a knot faster than the Russian battlecruiser, and at three hundred miles doesn’t have a chance of catching up to it.

If the Iowa were to close the distance with Kirov the odds slightly considerably. Iowa would have to get with sixty-seven miles for it to be able to use its sixteen Harpoon missiles—but even then such as small number of missiles would have a difficult time getting through Kirov’s three-layered air defense network.

In fact, the only range at which Iowa can really win a fight with Kirov is within twenty miles, when the ship’s nine sixteen-inch guns can come into play. At that range, the Kirov is indisputably dead meat, sent quickly to the bottom by the battleship’s big guns. Still, as satisfying as such an engagement would be, it’s hard to see how the Soviets would let an Iowa get that close.

Our 1988 hypothetical engagement is an example of the superiority of guns over missiles in certain scenarios. Guns—at least conventional guns—just don’t have the reach of modern missiles. Certain advances since then—including railgun weaponry and the long-range anti ship missile (LRASM) could breathe new life into a battleship platform, but that’s an argument for another day.

In 1988 the USS Iowa loses, limping away to fight another day. Still, that’s not all exactly bad news for the Americans: Kirov was forced to expend its missiles against a battleship that didn’t sink, and wasn’t able to fulfill its primary mission of sinking aircraft carriers or savaging NATO’s Atlantic convoys. Kirov returns to her home port to rearm, but thanks to the carriers that were saved, there may not be a port to go home to.

About the Author: Kyle Mizokami

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The United States is bolstering its military presence in the Middle East by deploying F-22 Raptors, along with other fighter squadrons, amid escalating tensions with Iran and its allied militant groups.

-This move follows recent incidents, including the death of key leaders in Tehran and Lebanon, and a meeting in Iran with Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups.

-The F-22 Raptors, known for their air superiority capabilities, will join existing forces to reinforce defensive air support and deter further escalation in the region.

F-22s Headed Back to the Middle East

The United States is beefing up its presence in the Middle East, and the Pentagon is now sending a squadron of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors to the region in addition to guided-missile cruisers and destroyers. The build-up of U.S. forces comes as Iran has vowed revenge for the death of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh last week in Tehran – as well as the missile strike in Lebanon that killed a top Hezbollah official.

The U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) " multiple forthcoming force posture" also follows a meeting in the Iranian capital that included officials from Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Yemeni-based Houthi militants. Tehran supports all of the groups, and the U.S. is now increasing its military presence to deter escalation in the region.

"The Secretary of Defense has reiterated that the United States will protect our personnel and interests in the region, including our ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel," the Pentagon said in a statement.

F-22 Raptors on the Way

The squadron of F-22 Raptors will join three combat aircraft squadrons already deployed to the Middle East, including an F-15E Strike Eagle an F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter squadron, and an A-10 Thunderbolt Close Air Support (CAS) squadron.

"The Secretary has also ordered the deployment of an additional fighter squadron to the Middle East, reinforcing our defensive air support capability," the DoD added.

According to a report from Air & Space Forces magazine, additional aerial refueling tanks are also being deployed to support the increased number of combat aircraft in the region.

The U.S. has yet to announce when the fifth-generation air superiority aircraft will arrive in the Middle East, or where they'll operate from. However, it marks the latest deployment of the advanced stealth fighters to the region, and it was in June 2023 that the Raptor was sent to the Middle East – at the time over escalating tensions between the U.S. and Russia, which each conduct air operations over Syria.

It is currently estimated that just around 100 of the Air Force's 183 operational F-22s are actually combat-ready at any given time. Though the Pentagon had originally sought to acquire 750 of the aircraft, the decision was made to scale back the order following the end of the Cold War.

Could the F-22 See Combat?

One of the most notable facts about the highly-touted F-22 Raptor is that it hasn't exactly been "combat-proven." It was only first employed in its secondary ground-attack role against targets in Syria in September 2014 during Operation Inherent Resolve, where it dropped 1,000-pound GPS-guided bombs on Islamic State targets. Over the next ten months, the Raptor went on to conduct 204 sorties in Syria, dropping 270 bombs.

It was only in February 2023 that the F-22 scored an air-to-air kill, when a Raptor from the 1st Fighter Wing, downed the alleged Chinese Spy balloon within visual range off the coast of South Carolina.

The presence of the F-22 back in the Middle East could deter Iran and the multiple militant groups it supports. But if that fails, the Raptor may finally bear its claws and remind the world that it was developed to be the world's premier air superiority fighter.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Tous, ou presque, en thérapie ? C'est à coup sûr le pays qui compte le plus de « psys », la « patrie symbolique » de Jacques Lacan. Les liens historiques entre Argentine et Europe ne suffisent pas à expliquer une longue hégémonie… aujourd'hui remise en cause par d'autres formes de traitement de la (...) / Argentine, Psychanalyse, Santé, Société - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is on its way to the Red Sea to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) as part of the U.S. Navy's ongoing carrier rotations in the Middle East.

-This comes amid increased tensions in the region following Israel's actions against Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, as well as the Houthis, who have been firing missiles.

-The carrier rotation highlights the U.S. Navy's struggle to maintain a consistent presence with its nuclear-powered supercarriers, which are stretched thin across multiple global hotspots. With the deployment of CVN-72, the Navy continues to juggle its limited carrier resources, emphasizing the challenges of sustaining long-term operations.

Aircraft Carrier Swap – USS Abraham Lincoln is on the Way to the Red Sea

The United States Navy's West Coast-based Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is now on her way from the Pacific to the Red Sea, where she will relieve her sister carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). It was just weeks ago that CVN-71 arrived in the 5th Fleet area of operation, taking over for another Nimitz-class carrier, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).

"To maintain a carrier strike group presence in the Middle East, the Secretary has ordered the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to replace the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, currently on deployment in the Central Command area of responsibility," the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement, adding that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, "has ordered additional ballistic missile defense-capable cruisers and destroyers to the U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command regions. The Department is also taking steps to increase our readiness to deploy additional land-based ballistic missile defense."

Exactly when the transition between the two carrier strike groups will occur, but US Naval Institute (USNI) News reported that it will likely take CVN-72 about two weeks to cross the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It also isn't fully clear how long the West Coast-based carrier will remain in the waters of the Middle East, but already, the U.S. Navy is preparing to send USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) to the region after she completes pre-deployment training.

The rotation of carriers serves to highlight how stretched thin the United States is right now. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower had seen her deployment extended twice, and the decision was made to send USS Theodore Roosevelt to the region to prevent a third extension. However, CVN-71 has also been deployed since January 11, 2024, and is due to return home soon.

Houthis and More: Regional Tinderbox in Red Sea

There has been the presence of a U.S. Navy CSG in the Middle East since last fall after the Hamas terrorist attack on southern Israel last October as well as missile attacks from the Houthis. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was sent to the Eastern Mediterranean in response, and the lead vessel of the U.S. Navy's new class of supercarriers saw her deployments also extended twice.

The Pentagon is preparing a "multiple forthcoming force posture," which comes in response to Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran and Beirut respectively.

Officials from Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as those from the Islamic Jihad and Yemeni-based Houthi rebels – also backed by Tehran – met on Thursday with top Iranian government officials. There are now fears that the Iran-back militant groups, as well as the Islamic Republic, could respond by launching additional attacks, possibly escalating the ongoing Gaza conflict into a full-blown regional war.

"The Secretary of Defense has reiterated that the United States will protect our personnel and interests in the region, including our ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel," the Pentagon added.

The Aircraft Carrier Gap

The deployment of CVN-71 to the Middle East has left in the Indo-Pacific and served to highlight the U.S. Navy's "Achilles Heel" – namely that there simply aren't enough warships to go around. As noted, the U.S. Navy extended the deployment of CVN-69 multiple times and the warship and her crew were pushed hard as a result.

Exactly how stretched thin the U.S. Navy's carrier fleet has only come into focus as the sea service must deal with multiple threats at the same time. Even as CVN-69 has returned home from the Red Sea, CVN-71 will remain in the region for a few more weeks, with CVN-72 acting as a stopgap until USS Harry S. Truman finally arrives in the region.

The United States Navy is now forced to play an increasingly complex game of musical chairs with its operational carriers. It may technically operate eleven nuclear-powered supercarriers – ten Nimitz class and one Gerald R. Ford class – but rarely are more than five or six at sea at any given time.

Long deployments mean longer time undergoing maintenance, and the problem is made worse by the state of the U.S. carrier industrial base, which builds and maintains the vessels, including the lack of shipyards. Nuclear-powered carriers are also taking longer to build, are costly to maintain, and then costly and complex to retire. Worst of all, there may not be enough of them in service!

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Condamnations « rapides », envoi de policiers spécialisés, le Premier ministre britannique Keir Starmer a promis ce lundi 5 août une réponse ferme pour mettre un coup d'arrêt aux violences d'extrême droite qui se sont propagées à travers le Royaume-Uni pendant le week-end. 

Une version révisée des règles de l’UE sur les émissions industrielles est entrée en vigueur dimanche 4 août, s’appliquant à un plus grand nombre d’exploitations d’élevage que la législation précédente.

Mark Twain is often credited with saying that history does not repeat itself, but it does often rhyme. He might well have been talking about the stock market’s repeated tendency to ignore deteriorating economic and political fundamentals. When it finally wakes up to this reality, it’s too late.

Something like this occurred in 2008 in the run-up to the 2008–2009 Great Economic Recession. And now, something similar seems to be occurring in the wake of last week’s disappointing U.S. employment report and the Bank of Japan’s surprise decision to raise interest rates. That latter rise has caused a spike in the Japanese yen that has caught many hedge funds off guard. Those hedge funds had been funding their large-scale purchases of U.S. tech companies with, up until now, cheap Japanese yen loans.

During the first half of 2008, the stock market experienced only a moderate decline. This was despite the clearest signs that the largest housing bubble in the country’s history had burst, the emergence of serious problems in the subprime market, and Bear Stearns’ failure in March 2008.

It was only after the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008 that the market realized how complacent it had been about the housing and sub-prime credit market stresses that were in plain sight. When it did so, it lost around 50 percent in its value by March 2009.

Fast forward to today. This year, we have seen a stock market boom despite the fact that over the past two years, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over a decade and despite the many signs of economic and political trouble at both home and abroad. One indication of that boom is the fact that the major stock market indices repeatedly scaled new heights, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index blowing past 40,000 and the S&P 500 Index blowing past 5,500. Another indication is the fact the stock market’s total capitalization reached the nosebleed level of almost 200 percent of GDP. That is around two standard deviations above its historical trend line.

If, in early 2008, the U.S. stock market was overly sanguine in the face of a domestic housing and sub-prime credit market problem, up until last week, it seems to have been overly optimistic about a host of economic and political problems both at home and abroad.

One of the problems to which the markets have turned a blind eye is the slow-motion train wreck that is now well underway in the U.S. commercial property market as more people work at least part of the time at home. Never mind that this problem has the potential of triggering another round of the regional bank crisis. Meanwhile, the market has chosen to ignore a substantial souring in the international economic outlook. Never mind that the Chinese economy, the world’s second-largest, is struggling with the bursting of an epic-sized housing and credit market bubble. Until very recently, Japan was battling the collapse of its currency, and a heavily indebted France now seems to be drifting towards political ungovernability, which could precipitate another round of the European sovereign debt crisis.

As if these economic problems were not reason enough for markets to have been more cautious, there are a number of political landmines in plain sight that could deal a significant blow to the U.S. and world economies. The Israel-Hamas war seems to be spreading to Iran, which could disrupt the world oil market. Meanwhile, at home, Donald Trump is threatening to introduce Smoot-Hawley-type import tariffs if he is re-elected, which could trigger a world trade war. 

We have to hope that the Federal Reserve realizes that today’s stock market weakness is unlikely to be a passing fad given the poor underlying world economic and political fundamentals. Maybe then the Fed will do the right thing and start cutting interest rates aggressively to provide long-overdue support to a weakening U.S. economy.

About the Author: Desmond Lachman 

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department, and the chief emerging-market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Air Force faces a growing capability gap as it retires aging warplanes without sufficient replacements. With the B-21 Raider delayed and current stealth bombers in short supply, reviving the F-117A Nighthawk could be a cost-effective solution.

-Despite being officially retired in 2008, the Nighthawk has continued to serve in classified testing, highlighting its enduring value.

-Instead of pursuing costly next-generation platforms, the Air Force could modify the F-117A for modern combat, potentially filling critical roles until new aircraft are ready.

-Given current geopolitical instability, restoring the Nighthawk to full operational capability may be a strategic necessity.

It’s Time to Bring Back the F-117A Nighthawk

The U.S. Air Force has a significant problem on its hands. America’s air branch has invested gobs of tax dollars on equipment and systems that are complex and expensive. Their current warplanes are being retired or rendered obsolete by new technologies at such alarming rates that the Air Force cannot replace them. 

It’s Not (Quite) Over for the F-117A Nighthawk

One of the Air Force’s most important advantages is that its warplanes possess stealth capabilities that many of America’s rivals still can’t match. Indeed, for decades, the Air Force has proudly operated multiple versions of stealth bombers and warplanes such as the B-2 Spirit and the F-117 Nighthawk. But their cost and age have prompted the Air Force to begin retiring these planes. 

Yet the Nighthawk, which was officially retired from service way back in 2008, just won’t stay down.

Since its official retirement, the Air Force has pulled the Nighthawk back into service on various occasions. No, it wasn’t sent to fight in any of America’s ongoing wars, but it was used for classified testing purposes. One can only assume that the various systems the Air Force has been developing to enhance the stealth capabilities of its newest platforms or sensors that can detect stealth planes were being tested against the F-117.

In 2017, Congress permitted the Air Force to begin disposing of its F-117 Nighthawk fleet to the tune of four airframes per year. Per Congressional mandate, the Air Force could either send these airframes to the scrapyard or to museums. 

By 2022, however, the Air Force altered its decommissioning plan for the Nighthawk fleet. They took it down from four to two, maybe three disposals per year. The War Zone reports that the “exact status of the Air Force’s current remaining F-117A inventory, including how many are still flying, is unclear. As of 2019, the service said it still has 51 jets in its possession and then said the following year that at least 12 had been specifically set aside to go to various museums.”

But for these platforms to make their way for public viewing at museums, a rigorous, time-consuming process of modification must be undertaken to remove the classified systems embedded within the aircraft. 

If Nighthawks are still so advanced that they must be rigorously decommissioned, should they really be retired? 

Would America’s air warfare capabilities be better served by simply modifying these birds to better withstand the evolving and complex nature of modern warfare? 

The F-117 Nighthawk is Still Ready for War

Given that the Air Force has been warning of a severe gap forming in their capabilities as planes are retired, might it be necessary to restore the Nighthawk to fighting prowess, at least until newer systems are available in sufficient numbers? 

That should probably be considered, given the strategic liabilities taking shape. 

For example, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber’s replacement, the B-21 Raider, is unlikely to be available in the necessary numbers anytime soon. B-2s are already far too few in number. If retired as planned, they will leave a gaping hole in the Air Force’s capabilities. Without a long-range stealth bomber at the ready, critical functions of the Air Force’s arsenal will be degraded to the point of being combat-ineffective.

And in the current unstable geopolitical environment, that’s the last thing any country should want for its air force.

Bring the F-117A Nighthawk Back to Full Operational Capability 

The Air Force has been very coy about why they have kept some 40 Nighthawks around, 16 years after they were officially retired. 

Rather than spending gobs of money on fanciful next-generation warplanes, such as the Air Force’s egregiously expensive Next Generation Air Dominance (or NGAD), why not simply spend a fraction of that money augmenting the F-117 Nighthawk? Make it into a stealthy drone-ferrying warbird, just as the Air Force wants to do with its proposed sixth-generation warplane. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

L’ancien président catalan, Carles Puigdemont, a déclaré qu’il prévoyait de retourner en Espagne pour l'investiture du nouveau président régional, le socialiste Salvador Illa, bien qu’il risque d’être arrêté dans un contexte de tensions politiques accrues.

Summary and Key Points: The Ukrainian Air Force has officially begun operating F-16 Fighting Falcons, marking a significant milestone in its transition to Western combat aviation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the jets are now in use, as Kyiv is set to receive 79 aircraft from NATO allies.

-While the F-16s offer advanced capabilities, including intercepting cruise missiles and drones, analysts caution they may not be game changers in the ongoing conflict. The U.S. has approved the transfer but won't provide its own jets, focusing instead on supplying ordnance.

-The arrival of the F-16s enhances Ukraine’s air defense but may not decisively shift the war’s outcome.

The F-16 is Now in Service With the Ukrainian Air Force

2024 has been a year of milestones for the F-16 Fighting Falcon, including the 50th anniversary of its first flight, and the transformation to a testbed for autonomous flight. On Sunday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also confirmed that the Ukrainian pilots have been operating the U.S.-made multirole fighter within the war-torn country.

"F-16s are in Ukraine. We did it. I am proud of our guys who are mastering these jets and have already started using them for our country," Zelensky said from an undisclosed location while being flanked by a pair of Fighting Falcons as two more soared overhead.

"This is the new stage of development of the air force of Ukraine's armed forces," Zelensky added. "We did a lot for Ukrainian forces to transition to a new aviation standard, the Western combat aviation."

The official announcement that the F-16s are now in Ukraine comes days after images of the fighters in the skies near Kharkiv appeared on social media. Kyiv is on track to receive a total of 79 of the jets – donated by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. Though an older variant, the F-16s are seen as being more capable than the vintage Soviet-era aircraft operated by the Ukrainian Air Force.

Though Washington gave the green light for the transfer of the aircraft, the United States hasn't committed to supplying any Fighting Falcons. The U.S. has pledged to provide some ordnance that could be employed from the aircraft – notably the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), AIM-9X missile, AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles, and JDAM Extended-Range and Small-Diameter Bombs.

F-16: Capable Warbird and High-Value Target for Russia 

According to a report from Reuters, Ukrainian officials had worked "24/7" to ensure that the fighters would be properly secured, as the Kremlin has vowed to destroy the Fighting Falcons and has already been targeting potential bases that could house the fighters.

For those reasons, the F-16s provided to Ukraine by NATO members should be considered among the most valuable targets in the country, perhaps after Zelensky.

Won't be a Game Changer

Though more advanced than the current fleet of Ukrainian combat aircraft, the F-16 likely won't be a serious game changer. It may help protect Ukraine's cities, but it won't be enough to turn the tide of war.

Analysts have suggested that the effectiveness of the F-16 is being constrained as Washington and other Western allies won't allow Ukraine to use the fighters to strike inside Russian territory. Likewise, 79 aircraft – not all of which have arrived or likely will be operational by the end of the year – will be significant enough in number to make a huge difference. Kyiv's pilots also haven't been put through the years of training that Fighting Falcon jockeys normally go through.

Yet, the F-16s will have the ability to intercept cruise missiles and drones in flight. In other words, for the rest of 2024 and perhaps into 2025 should the war continue, the Fighting Falcon will be employed as a much-needed defensive platform.

Perhaps that is what Kyiv needs most right now, and that could allow Ukraine to carry on the fight.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Der ehemalige katalanische Präsident Charles Puigdemont will nach Spanien zurückkehren. Allerdings droht ihm inmitten der verschärften politischen Spannungen eine Verhaftung.

Summary and Key Points: The T-14 Armata, Russia's advanced main battle tank, boasts impressive specs like a 125 mm smoothbore gun, modular armor, and a 55 mph top speed. Despite its power, Russia has only produced about 20 units due to the tank's complexity and high cost.

-In contrast, Russia is focusing on simpler, more cost-effective tanks like the T-72 and T-90, which are easier to produce and maintain.

-While the T-14 was field-tested in Syria and briefly deployed in Ukraine, it was quickly pulled back, highlighting the challenges of using complex systems in modern warfare, where function often trumps form.

The T-14 Armata: A Powerful Tank That Russia Won’t Mass Produce

One of the strangest phenomena in modern warfare is the gap between the expensive, complex systems the world’s advanced militaries procure versus the actual needs of those militaries once in combat. 

The Americans experienced this painful reality in the Middle East during wars defined by the improvised explosive device and the unmanned aerial vehicle. 

The Russians are experiencing the same with their tanks in Ukraine. 

The Specifications on the T-14 Armata 

The T-14 Armata is one of the most powerful, fearsome tanks in the world – at least on paper. This latest-generation main battle tank has an unmanned turret sporting a 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun fed by an autoloader. 

According to Army Technology, that turret “carries a total of 45 rounds of ammunition, including ready-to-use ammunition. The main gun can also fire laser-guided missiles.” A more sophisticated 2A83 152 mm gun can also be equipped. So can secondary weapons such as a Kord 12.7 mm machine gun and a PKTM 7.62 mm machine gun. 

The hull of the T-14 Armata looks otherworldly. It has a modular armor system composed of ceramics, steel, and composite material. This tank sports a low silhouette, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the machinery to enemy fire and favoring the survivability of the tank crew. The crew is also protected from unwanted explosions of the tank’s autoloader and ammunition stores. This was a problem for many previous Soviet-era tanks. 

The T-14 has reactive armor in the front and bar armor out back, which enhances protection against anti-tank weapons. Russia’s T-14 is powered by an A-85-3A turbocharged diesel engine, producing up to 1,200 horsepower. It has a 12-speed automatic transmission, too. An Armata has a standard range of 310 miles and a top cruising speed of about 55 miles per hour. 

Russia wanted a whopping 2,300 units of these tanks. 

Needless to say, that lofty goal was scaled back both because of the complexity of the systems involved and the obscenely high cost. Russia has about 20 of these systems, and it has no intention, or even capability at this point, to mass-produce more of them. 

The T-14’s Service Record (So Far)

The T-14 was field tested in the killing fields of Syria. It performed adequately, although there was little evidence the T-14s did anything more than a T-90M would have done. Meanwhile, in the Ukraine War, Russia’s greatest conflict since the Soviet-Afghan War, the T-14s have been pulled back from the fighting. 

While they were initially deployed and are believed to have been involved in a smattering of engagements, they were used mostly in support functions. They were quickly and quietly pulled back from the fighting and returned to Russia. It is not believed they will ever be deployed to Ukraine again.

Russia’s industrial base has not only survived the Western sanctions lobbed against it at the outset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is likely stronger today than it has been in decades. 

Yet the Russians are not prioritizing the mass production of these advanced, costly systems. Instead, Russia is fixated on purchasing more variants of the T-90 MBT. Come to think of it, Russia is even more interested in mass-producing the Soviet-era T-72 MBT than they are in the Armata. 

The Cult of the Complex

Function beats form every time in modern warfare. It is a timeless lesson. Cost is always a significant factor, and simplicity should always be preferred over complexity. The Russians are doing just fine with their old T-72s and the slightly more sophisticated T-90s. 

These systems are far cheaper, easier to produce, better to maintain, and less complex to operate than the T-14s. Russia is smart not to waste its money on building more T-14 Armatas. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

La Commission européenne a annoncé lundi 5 août la mise en œuvre de mesures contraignantes à l’encontre de TikTok, qui ne peut plus lancer de programme de récompenses pour ses utilisateurs européens.

Des plages de sable blanc immaculé où se prélassent les touristes. Des lagons aux eaux turquoise. Ce décor de carte postale ferait presque oublier l'amoncellement de problèmes auquel font face les îles Cook, petit État du Pacifique sud : le changement climatique qui dégrade la vie quotidienne, la (...) / Îles Cook, Nouvelle-Zélande, Matières premières, Géopolitique - 2024/08

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class submarines are advanced and versatile, but they may not match the speed of the legendary Seawolf-class.

-Powered by a Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, the Seawolf-class can achieve top speeds of 35 miles per hour (25 knots), making it the fastest attack submarine in the world.

-While the Virginia-class submarines, powered by a GE S9G reactor, are newer and more adaptable with increased firepower and interoperability, they likely fall short in terms of speed and depth. The Seawolf-class’s superior speed and stealth, despite its limited numbers, still give it an edge in submarine performance.

The Virginia-class Submarines are Fast, But the Seawolf-class is Faster

The United States Navy’s Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine has been described by many experts as the most advanced attack sub in the world. Despite this, little details are known about key aspects of this newer submarine. One question pervades many discussions about this submarine’s capabilities, how fast can this boat travel?

Compared to another highly advanced attack submarine in the Navy’s fleet, the legendary Seawolf-class, we know that that class is widely considered to be the fastest attack submarine in the world. 

As I have written in these pages, the Seawolf-class can achieve top cruising speeds of thirty-five miles per hour (twenty-five knots). However, the Virginia-class is newer and was chosen by the Navy to be the replacement for the long-serving Los Angeles-class attack submarine over the Seawolf-class submarine because, according to the Navy’s leadership, the Virginia class was even more advanced than the Seawolf class.

Understanding the Mechanics 

Well, whenever one talks about speed on any kind of craft, it’s always important to look at the engine powering the machine. For example, when speaking about the M1 Abrams tank, it’s important to note the fact that they are powered by a literal jet engine, which explains their power and speed.

Similarly, the Seawolf-class submarine retains the record of the fastest submarine in the world and is powered by a single Westinghouse S6W nuclear reactor, “driving two steam turbines, to a total of 52,000 shaft horsepower,” according to Kyle Mizokami.

The Virginia-class attack submarines, meanwhile, are the General Electric (GE)-provided pressure water reactor S9G which is “designed to last as long as the submarine, two turbine engines with one shaft and a United Defense pump jet propulsor.” Surprisingly, despite its capabilities, there is some debate as to whether even the newer Virginia-class attack submarines are better than the Seawolf-class subs when it comes to speed.

An Argument Between Submariners

There was a fiery debate on one defense forum among former US Navy submariners about which platform was truly better. The consensus was that, despite being more numerous and newer than the Seawolf-class, the Virginia-class was not superior to the older Seawolf-class submarine. In my own reporting, I have proven that the only reason the Seawolf-class was not scaled beyond only three boats was due to their high cost as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 

According to many submariners, the Seawolf-class subs can dive deeper and run faster than the Virginia-class submarines. 

Let’s take a look at the believed flank speed of the Virginia-class. It is believed that the Virginia-class has a flank speed—or top cruising speed—of around twenty-five knots, the same as the Seawolf-class. So why are so many former submariners online arguing that the Seawolf-class is better and faster? 

That’s because in terms of diving and flank speed, or at least sustaining flank speed, the Seawolf-class is better than the Virginia-class. Where the Seawolf-class likely loses to the Virginia-class is in firepower and interoperability. 

The Virginia-class is More Versatile

For instance, in 2021, H.I. Sutton at Naval News reported that the Virginia-class subs were slated to get “seventy-six percent more firepower” than what they already had. The Virginia-class in general terms is easier to modify and can be used in a variety of offensive ways that the Seawolf might not be able to be used. 

Again, the Seawolf has some incredible covert capabilities. 

Speed and maneuverability as well as stealth are primary components to making a good modern submarine. Both the Seawolf-class and Virginia-class possess these features but in different admixtures. 

And, it is likely that the Seawolf-class is simply faster than the Virginia-class but that the Virginia-class may be a more well-rounded (certainly cheaper) submarine than the Seawolf-class submarines. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the Vault

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

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

Den Einbruch der Aktienmärkte an den weltweiten Börsen kommentiert DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher wie folgt:

Die Korrekturen an den Börsen sind notwendig und richtig. Die Börsen sind trotz Pandemie, Energiekrise und einer schwachen Weltwirtschaft in den vergangenen Jahren stark gestiegen und haben sich deutlich von der Entwicklung der Wirtschaft abgekoppelt. Was wir nun sehen, ist eine Korrektur der Überbewertungen vieler Unternehmen an den Aktienmärkten. Vor allem der Hype um Künstliche Intelligenz hatte in den vergangenen Monaten die Börsenpreise getrieben; mit dem Platzen der Blase kommt es nun zu dieser Korrektur. Ich erwarte auch in den kommenden Jahren größere Korrekturen an den Aktienmärkten, da viele Unternehmen nach wie vor überbewertet sind und viele Investoren mit ihren Spekulationen zu einer Blase beigetragen haben. Es ist schwierig Überbewertungen und Blasen akkurat zu messen, die Diskrepanz bei den Bewertungen ist jedoch signifikant und auch das Risikoverhalten nimmt nun wieder ab. 

Die Zentralbanken werden nicht auf die Korrekturen der Aktienmärkte reagieren, da diese sich weder negativ auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung noch auf die Finanzstabilität auswirken werden. Zudem unterstützt die Geldpolitik der US-Notenbank und der EZB die Aktienmärkte, weil sie nun am Anfang eines Zyklus von Zinssenkungen stehen. So hat die EZB bereits seine erste Zinssenkung unternommen, und die US-Notenbank Federal Reserve dürfte im September folgen. Dies macht es Regierungen und Unternehmen auch leichter, künftige Schulden zu finanzieren.