19.7 C
London
Thursday, September 17, 2026
Subscribe
Home Blog

Pete Hegseth’s Unholy War

By
Liz Theoharis
-
0
pete-hegseth’s-unholy-war
Pete Hegseth’s Unholy War


Hegseth’s Theology and the Question: What Would Jesus Do?

There is a question Christians have been asking for generations: What would Jesus do?

It is a deceptively simple question that is printed on bracelets and bumper stickers, taught to children in Sunday schools, and invoked when Christians are discerning how faith should shape public life. The question becomes considerably more demanding when the decisions at stake concern war, immigration, poverty, political power, and the use of military force.

In addition to the recent attention about his military strategy, social and political beliefs, and leadership style, Pete Hegseth’s public theology deserves serious attention from those unfamiliar and disinterested in religion as well as adherents of Christianity.

As secretary of defense, Hegseth has increasingly spoken about American power in explicitly Christian language. He has hosted Christian worship at the Pentagon, invoked Scripture in connection with military service, emphasized the Christian foundations of the United States, and described some Trump administration policies — including border enforcement — as “biblical.” Indeed, speaking at a Christian media convention last February, Hegseth connected the health and founding of the United States with Christianity and characterized border and immigration policies as mandated in the Bible.

The question about Hegseth’s faith and religious practice, however, cannot simply be whether he is sincere. The question is more fundamental: What kind of Christianity is being proclaimed when the language of Jesus is attached to military power? Or perhaps a simpler but harder question: In the face of war, authoritarianism, economic, environmental, and political crises: What would Jesus do?

A Christianity of Power

The Christian faith has always contained competing visions of what it means to follow Jesus. There is a Christianity that blesses kings, armies, empires, and national ambitions. There is another Christianity that remembers a Palestinian Jewish leader who was unhoused and a migrant and was executed by an imperial power after heralding the arrival of a radically different kingdom. This distinction matters a great deal.

Hegseth routinely emphasizes strength, warriors, national identity, borders, enemies, and divine blessing. And joining forces with Israel to prosecute the war with Iran has only heightened the stakes of his rhetoric. Early in the conflict, Hegseth cited Psalm 144, including its language about God training hands for war and fingers for battle.

There is nothing inherently un-Christian about a person in the military having a sincere religious faith. People of faith serve in the armed forces for many reasons. Generations of religious scholars and adherents have considered war and conflict as it relates to the faith through theories and practices of religious pacifism, “just war,” defensive war, theologies of self-defense, conceptions of the last days, and the ethical limits of violence in humanitarian conflicts, among others. The theological problem arises, however, when the power of the state begins to present itself as an instrument of God’s purposes.

That is a very old temptation.

Empires have long claimed divine sanction. Kings have declared their wars holy. Nations have wrapped their ambitions in sacred language. And Christians have at times sought to confuse the interests of the nation with the kingdom of God. But Jesus does something profoundly disruptive to this arrangement: He refuses to identify God with Caesar.

The People at the Margins

Consider where Jesus directs our attention. Throughout the Bible, Jesus embraces people whom those with power, military might, and wealth have pushed aside: the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, immigrants, women, children, tax collectors, and those treated as religious outsiders.

In Matthew 25, one of the most famous Bible passages — sometimes called the “Last Judgment” — Jesus identifies with the hungry, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned. “Whatever you did for one of the least of these,” he teaches, “you did for me.”

That is not an incidental teaching. It is a political and theological reorientation. And it is directed at nations, not simply individuals or religious congregations.

Jesus asks: How has your nation treated the most vulnerable among you?

The question Jesus asks his followers is not first, “How strong is your nation?” It is not, “How effectively have you defeated your enemies?” It is not even, “How faithfully have you defended your borders?” Instead, he asks: How has your nation treated the most vulnerable among you? This matters enormously when Christian language is used to justify violent and exclusionary immigration policy or when it is used to promote cutting off families from food or lifesaving healthcare.

If we claim that border enforcement is “biblical,” then Christians must practice the Bible’s extraordinary insistence on welcoming the other. After all, Scripture commands God’s people to remember that they, too, were once strangers in a foreign land, and the way to honor and worship God is by welcoming the immigrant neighbor. If Matthew 25 means what Christians have traditionally claimed, Christ is encountered precisely among the hungry, the unhoused, the incarcerated — and that as long as anyone is unfree and impoverished, it is the responsibility of the nation to do something about it.

Theology of the Enemy

There is another problem with a Christianity centered on military strength: its understanding of the enemy. Christianity does not teach that some people become less human because they are someone’s adversaries. It does not profess that God blesses battleships nor justifies genocide (even if Hegseth’s spiritual adviser claims it does).

Jesus does not say, “Love your friends and destroy your enemies.”

Jesus’s command to love one’s enemies may be among the most difficult teachings in the entire New Testament. It is also one of the clearest.

Jesus does not say, “Love your friends and destroy your enemies.” He says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Jesus does not say, “Blessed are the powerful because they shall dominate.” He says, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the descendants of God,” and “Blessed are the poor for they shall be first under God’s reign.”

That does not mean that people of faith must be naïve about violence. It does not mean governments face no genuine security threats. It does not erase the moral complexity of protecting human beings from violence. But it does mean that people who call themselves Christians should be extraordinarily cautious whenever military violence is described as holy, righteous, inevitable, or divinely ordained.

Christian tradition contains a long history of wrestling with war. It also contains an even deeper tradition of martyrs, peacemakers, conscientious objectors, abolitionists, human rights activists, and nonviolent movements that have insisted that human beings cannot be reduced to enemies.

On “Christ Is King”

One phrase that increasingly appears in Hegseth’s public religious rhetoric is “Christ is King.” On the surface, this is an ancient Christian confession. But Christians should be careful about what happens when it is fused with nationalism. If Christ is King, then Caesar is not. If Christ is King, then the nation cannot be God. If Christ is King, then military might cannot be the ultimate measure of righteousness. And if Christ is King, then Christians must remember what kind of king Jesus was.

Jesus did not arrive in Jerusalem on a tank. He did not establish his kingdom through an air campaign. He did not recruit an army to seize the Roman state. Jesus entered the city on a donkey. He washed his disciples’ feet. He touched people considered untouchable. He fed hungry crowds. He stood with the condemned. And when his disciples reached for weapons, Jesus told them to put them away. This is not weakness; it is a different conception of power and a different idea of violence, military and force. And it stands worlds away from the Hegseth’s professed belief in a conquering Christ.

Christian nationalism raises the question of who counts as part of the nation — and, implicitly, who counts as part of the Christian community. Hegseth’s religious politics have attracted scrutiny because of his association with a conservative Reformed Christian milieu and his willingness to amplify figures and institutions associated with Christian nationalist ideas. That should concern Christians not because Christianity should be banished from public life, but because Christianity is too important to be reduced to a tribal identity. There is no nationalism in the Sermon on the Mount; there is no exceptionalism in the Last Judgment.

Christianity offers an alternative to nationalism that does not require Christians to abandon love of country, but it begins by refusing to worship their nation.

Jesus did not teach his followers to build communities divided by race, citizenship status, wealth, or political loyalty. The early Christian proclamation was astonishing precisely because it created a community in which Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female could belong together.

Christianity becomes spiritually dangerous when it is transformed from a call to discipleship into a badge of national membership, and a cross becomes something very different when it is used to sanctify exclusion, violence, and war, especially against the poor and marginalized.

So, What Would Jesus Do?

Let’s stop treating “What would Jesus do?” as a sentimental slogan. Instead, ask the question concretely.

What would Jesus do when a family fleeing poverty and violence arrives at the border?

What would Jesus do when a child is separated from a parent?

What would Jesus do when a nation considers going to war?

What would Jesus do when military personnel are asked to kill (and the nation suggests canceling student debt to those who sign up to do that killing)?

What would Jesus do when poor communities are abandoned while enormous resources flow into weapons?

What would Jesus do when a government claims God has blessed its political program?

And what would Jesus do when Christians begin to believe that their nation has a special claim on God?

The Gospels give us clues. Jesus runs toward suffering rather than away from it. Jesus challenges religious authorities who use God to legitimize their own power. Jesus feeds people rather than lecturing them. Jesus welcomes the stranger. Jesus stands with those society declares expendable. And Jesus tells his followers that greatness consists not in domination but in liberation. That is a radically different theology of power.

Another Christian Patriotism

Christianity offers an alternative to nationalism that does not require Christians to abandon love of country, but it begins by refusing to worship their nation. It means loving one’s neighbors, including neighbors who have crossed a border. It means seeking peace rather than glorifying war. It means protecting human life rather than measuring success by military superiority. It means asking whether public resources are being used to ensure that every person has food, housing, healthcare, education, dignity, and a meaningful opportunity to flourish.

And it means remembering that the Bible’s central story is not the triumph of one nation over all others. It is the liberation of an oppressed people. It is the insistence that Pharaoh does not have the final word. That is why the question “What would Jesus do?” cannot be separated from the question raised by Florence Reece’s popular song written in 1931 in Harlan County, Kentucky, during the union organizing drive of the United Mine Workers: “Which side are you on?”

Christian faith does not ask us to look down from the Pentagon, the White House, or any other seat of power and decide which people deserve compassion. Instead, Jesus teaches us to love God, love your neighbor, love even your enemy — and recognize Christ in the people that those in power tell you to hate and fear.

When Christian nationalism asks its followers to choose between faith and the stranger, between military might and peacemaking, between national supremacy and human solidarity, Christians — including the Christians in the highest reaches of power — should ask a different question. Not “How can we make America powerful enough to win?” But: What would Jesus do?

The answer begins where the Gospel always has: feeding the hungry, welcoming the immigrant, freeing the oppressed, and telling the people at the bottom that God has not forgotten them. That is not a weak Christianity. It is Christianity’s most dangerous claim about power: The last shall be first. The mighty shall be brought down. And the kingdom of God belongs not to those who dominate, but to those who serve.

South Korea is the stark future of super-aged societies

By
IwPost
-
0
south-korea-is-the-stark-future-of-super-aged-societies
South Korea is the stark future of super-aged societies

In December 2024, the share of South Koreans ages 65 and older surpassed 20% for the first time, making it what demographers like us call a “super-aged society.” By August 2026 that share had risen further, to 22.1%.

That label can sound like a diagnosis, but population aging is not inherently a problem. In part, it reflects demographic progress: Fewer people are dying prematurely, and people are living longer due to improved living conditions. Thus, an older population can simply be a sign of society having grown safer, healthier and demographically more mature.

The central concern, then, is not simply that a population is aging, but how quickly it is aging and whether society is prepared for it. South Korea moved from an aging society, meaning 7%-13% of a population is over 64, to a super-aged society in about 24 years.

This transition was considerably faster than Japan, where it took 35 years. In the United States, older adults are projected to make up 23.4% of the population by 2060.

By 2060, about 41% of South Koreans are projected to be 65 or older, which would place the country to become the oldest. The country will face growing pressure on pensions, healthcare, workplaces and caregiving systems, but will have relatively little time to adapt.

We research population health and aging. In our most recent study, published in July 2026, we examined how South Korea is dealing with its aging population. South Korea is not the first country to become a super-aged society, but the pace of its demographic transition has been exceptionally rapid. We believe its experience offers an early view of the choices many societies will soon face.

Changing family life

In the 1990s, the largest age groups were those between 15 and 34.

Now, more than 30 years later, the youngest of these are more than 45 years old, and the oldest have already reached retirement age, which in South Korea is 60. Notably, the share of people ages 30 and younger is shrinking.

South Korea’s aging is also connected to a broader shift in fertility, family formation and family life. As people gain greater individual autonomy in deciding how to organize their lives, there is a demographic transition toward sustained low fertility, later marriage and parenthood, and more diverse family arrangements.

Today, South Korea has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

Economic challenges

South Korea is still wrestling with the financial implications of being a super-aged society.

The country’s retirement system relies mainly on the National Pension Service, a pension fund financed by contributions from workers, employers and the self-employed, and the Basic Pension, a separate, tax-funded benefit for lower-income adults ages 65 and older.

But unless something changes, the national pension fund is projected to be depleted by 2054. Many older adults have incomplete pension contribution histories and receive only modest benefits. Among those born before 1950, poverty rates are higher due to limited access to pensions and limited wealth accumulation.

According to the latest Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, data, South Korea has the highest old-age income poverty rate among the OECD’s 38 member countries: 39.7% of people ages 66 and older live on less than half the national median household disposable income, compared with the OECD average of 14.8%.

Despite multiple efforts at policy reform, economic insecurity persists among older adults in South Korea.

Because many older adults are asset rich but cash poor – with more than 80% of their assets in real estate but only 12.4% in savings – many are pairing the Basic Pension with reverse mortgages to turn their assets into disposable income.

Raising the retirement age

Because pensions fall short for so many, South Korea has a high employment rate among older adults.

In fact, the average age at which South Korean older adults leave the workforce is higher than that in any of the other OECD countries. While men typically leave their longest-held job at about age 51, they continue to work until around age 72. Many spend those years in lower-paying, less secure “second careers.

Simply raising the retirement age is insufficient. South Korea is currently debating whether to gradually raise the statutory retirement age from 60 to 65. This would allow workers to remain in their primary careers longer, in order to narrow the gap between retirement and pension benefit eligibility.

But while this might ease financial pressures or improve older workers’ income security, it could also negatively affect the upward mobility of younger workers if older employees remain in senior positions for longer.

For now, South Korea has already begun making changes to both pension financing and late career employment. A 2025 pension reform will gradually raise the national pension contribution rate from 9% to 13% by 2033 and set the target replacement rate – that is, the share of preretirement income that the pension is designed to replace – at 43%.

Elderly woman in wheelchair stares out the window
In addition to attending to its older citizens’ physical health, South Korea is also looking at ways to address loneliness and mental health among the elderly. Plan Shooting 2/Imazins via Getty Images via The Conversation

New healthcare needs

One of the biggest challenges for South Korea’s rapidly aging society is healthcare.

In 2008, South Korea introduced long term care insurance, which supports home care, nursing, rehabilitation, daycare, assistive devices and residential care for people with physical or cognitive needs. The program is financed through National Health Insurance, government funding and user copays.

Adults ages 65 and older can qualify if they are assessed as having difficulty performing daily activities or have specific age-related conditions, such as dementia or cerebrovascular disease. Eligibility is not income-based, although lower-income beneficiaries pay reduced or no copays.

Demand for services is rising rapidly. In 2024, 10.8% of people 65 and older and 31.9% of those at least 80 were certified for benefits, and these percentages are expected to increase.

But the program isn’t perfect: Families still provide substantial care, the care workforce is concentrated among older women in economically insecure jobs, and rural areas have fewer services and limited infrastructure to address the growing needs. It also doesn’t help that many older South Koreans worry about becoming a burden on their families.

Staying connected

Mental health and social connection have also become important components of South Korea’s response to population aging. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the OECD, and the suicide rate among adults 65 and older was higher than in other age groups.

Social isolation is another growing concern. According to the 2023 National Survey of Older Koreans, 6.6% of adults 65 and older reported having no one they could turn to for help when they were sick, feeling discouraged or depressed, or facing an urgent financial need. The share rose from 4.6% among those between 65 and 69 to 12.9% among those 85 and older.

The same national survey documented that 4.8% of older adults reported physical, sexual or emotional abuse in the previous year, while 26.3% reported age discrimination in at least one everyday setting. These vulnerabilities can intersect with access to care, particularly among older adults with low incomes or functional limitations.

Risks and vulnerabilities are especially high for people living alone, those in poor health and rural residents. Visits, phone calls and community programs help, but these cannot replace adequate income, transportation, healthcare, housing or sustained social and family relationships.

Takeaways for other countries

When our team compared South Korea’s experience to that of other aging societies at different stages of demographic transition, it became clear that South Korea’s policies cannot simply be copied and implemented elsewhere.

What travels more easily are the broader lessons South Korea can offer societies that are earlier in their demographic transitions and therefore have more time to prepare.

South Korea highlights the need to build long-term care capacity before existing systems become overwhelmed. It also demonstrates why policymakers need to coordinate pension reforms with employment policy, rather than attempting to fix just one or the other. South Korea also underscores the need to design programs for older adults to reach rural and disadvantaged communities.

But the strongest lesson from South Korea is about timing: Aging societies have more options when they act before fiscal pressure, labor shortages and unmet care needs become severe.

South Korea has created important institutions and continues to adapt the system as needs change, especially in long-term care, but its experience also shows the costs of allowing policy and public attitudes to lag behind demographic reality.

Jeongmin Park is a PhD candidate at the Health and Human Development, Penn State and Alexis R. Santos is associate professor of human development and family studies, demography and public policy, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thousands will die if EPA repeals power plant climate rules, lawsuit says

By
IwPost
-
0
thousands-will-die-if-epa-repeals-power-plant-climate-rules,-lawsuit-says
Thousands will die if EPA repeals power plant climate rules, lawsuit says

Days after finalizing a rule that would eliminate climate rules for power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was sued by groups who say the EPA’s repeal was shockingly short-sighted and risked leaving the country’s single largest source of industrial climate pollution unchecked.

On Thursday, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition requesting that the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit review if the EPA’s action conflicts with the Clean Air Act.

“Clean air is a basic human right,” APHA CEO Georges C. Benjamin said.

A physician and long-time public health policy leader, Benjamin warned that the EPA was “weakening” “life-saving standards” and stripping away “vital protections for all, and especially for children, pregnant people and communities already overburdened by pollution.” The lawsuit alleges that the rule change could cause thousands of premature deaths.

In the EPA’s announcement of the proposed repeal, the agency claimed that its action was based on “the best reading of the Clean Air Act.” Benjamin disagrees.

“Power plant pollution threatens the health of millions of Americans and fuels climate change, worsening extreme heat, poor air quality, and other serious health risks,” Benjamin said. He urged the court to recognize that the “EPA must maintain strong clean air and climate standards so every community can live a healthy life.”

The EPA may struggle to defend the rule given that its core mission is “to protect human health and the environment.” Meredith Hankins, NRDC’s federal climate legal director, accused the EPA of abdicating its legal responsibilities. She appeared confident that the EPA repeal will not survive court scrutiny.

“The Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent demand that the EPA address climate pollution from the largest industrial source in the nation,” Hankins said. “The EPA’s legal reasoning is fatally flawed, so we are going to court.”

“Devastating consequences” of EPA’s rollback

So far, the EPA has not acknowledged any potential harms of the rule change. Instead, the agency proposed rescinding all remaining greenhouse gas emissions requirements for power plants, claiming that the restrictions produce “virtually no benefits.”

Rather than meaningfully addressing the risks that advocacy groups describe, the EPA relied on an argument that anyone who’s ever monitored a climate lawsuit will recognize: that climate change is global and “public health harms are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted to tie specifically to the US power sector.”

Overall, the agency appears more focused on claiming to have delivered $310 billion in savings on utilities for Americans, while saying that the repeal is “expected to unleash the full potential of America’s vast energy resources, including coal and natural gas.” The announcement also said the power plants will “save an additional $370 million in direct compliance costs.”

Advocacy groups say the EPA is turning a blind eye to a wide range of harms that could be easily addressed by maintaining the status quo. Lawrence Hafetz, the legal director of the Pennsylvania-based Clean Air Council, warned that the “EPA is senselessly discarding readily attainable carbon standards for power plants mere weeks after the UN showed the world on a trajectory to exceed the heating limit needed to avoid severe levels of economic, ecological, and social disruption.”

Impacts will be felt throughout the US, groups forecasted. For example, Brett Korte, a senior staff attorney for Clean Wisconsin, said he is bracing for “devastating consequences” if the rollback is allowed to stand.

“Here in Wisconsin, we’re experiencing warmer winters with less snow and ice cover, more exceedingly hot days in summer, and more frequent extreme weather events, like flooding and tornadoes, due to climate change,” Korte said. “On top of that, Wisconsin has the ninth-highest death rate from particulate matter pollution from fossil fuel combustion. EPA abandoning its responsibility to regulate carbon pollution would only make these problems worse.”

The EPA’s timing is terrible, and communities will experience unnecessary deaths if the court does not intervene, said Vickie Patton, who serves as general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

“More Americans than ever are suffering from the dangerous heat and more powerful storms caused by that pollution and are facing the ensuing skyrocketing insurance bills and health costs,” Patton said. By increasing power plant climate pollution in this moment, the EPA rule change “will cause thousands of premature deaths and billions of dollars in additional health costs,” she predicted.

“We are taking action in the court of law to ensure [the] EPA carries out its responsibilities under our nation’s clean air laws to protect the American people from this harmful pollution and to address the health risks and financial costs for people across the country,” Patton said.

Thousands of Americans have submitted comments on the rule change so far, and the EPA continues to seek public input. At the end of this month, the EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposed repeal, an a public comment period extends through October.

Nato is concerned about the threat from Russia. But it isn’t panicking – yet

By
IwPost
-
0
nato-is-concerned-about-the-threat-from-russia.-but-it-isn’t-panicking-–-yet
Nato is concerned about the threat from Russia. But it isn’t panicking – yet

Over the past few weeks, a striking theme has emerged in discussions surrounding Nato. Senior political figures and former Nato officials have raised the possibility of invoking article 5 in response to severe cyber-attacks.

Military leaders have warned that Russia may seek opportunities to test the alliance’s resolve. These developments have prompted an obvious question: is Nato worried about being drawn into a wider European conflict?

The short answer is no. Nato isn’t panicking. But it is certainly having to confront a set of challenges more complicated than the prospect of a conventional war alone.

The real concern inside the alliance is not simply what Russia might do. It is whether Nato can maintain the unity and credibility needed to deter Russia while dealing with the growing political and strategic uncertainty among its members.

Much of the current discussion actually revolves around what are called “hybrid” activities. These tend to involve things such as cyber-attacks, sabotage, disinformation campaigns, airspace violations, GPS disruption and drone incursions. On September 15, jets deployed to the Nato air defence mission shot down what is alleged to have been a Russian drone violating Lithuanian airspace. Meanwhile, Denmark accused the Russian navy of firing flares at one of its helicopters operating in the Baltic Sea.

Such actions fall into the grey area between peace and war. They create uncertainty, impose costs and test political resolve, but without triggering an immediate military response. This presents Nato with a dilemma. The alliance was designed to deter major military aggression. It is less clear how it should respond to actions that are provocative but ambiguous.

Some western officials argue that Russia’s objective may not be to start a war with Nato at all. It may instead be to probe for weaknesses and identify areas where allies disagree over what constitutes an appropriate response, allowing for Moscow to play a longer game than some in eastern Europe would suspect.

In that sense, deterrence is no longer merely about tanks and missiles. It is about maintaining political unity in the face of continuous low-level pressure.

The article 5 problem

At the heart of Nato’s mission lies article 5, the commitment that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. The difficulty is that article 5 derives its power not from legal wording but from credibility. Adversaries must believe that alliance members would actually follow through on their commitments if tested.

Analysts examining Nato’s eastern flank increasingly emphasise that deterrence rests on perceptions of allied willingness and political resolve as much as military capability.

If a hostile state caused widespread disruption to electrical grids, banking systems or communications infrastructure, would that justify collective military action? The answer is not always clear. For Nato planners, uncertainty itself can become a vulnerability.

Much of today’s anxiety is linked to the US. For 75 years, the alliance’s credibility has rested heavily on the assumption that Washington would lead any major response to aggression in Europe. That assumption has not disappeared. But it has become less straightforward than many European leaders would like.

Recent policy debates have increasingly focused on shifting responsibility for conventional defence towards European allies. Discussions about reducing US military commitments in Europe, reviewing troop deployments and encouraging greater European self-reliance have become central features of transatlantic security debates.

This does not mean the US is abandoning Nato. But it does mean alliance planners must consider scenarios in which American resources are stretched across multiple theatres and political attention is divided among competing priorities.

President Donald Trump (2-L) meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (L), Vice President JD Vance (2-R) and United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 14 July 2025.

The Trump administration has signalled a shift in policy which will require Nato’s European members to be more self-reliant. EPA/Yuri Gripas

The challenge for Europe is therefore not replacing the US, but adapting to a future in which Washington expects allies to carry a greater share of the burden. The latest Nato concept to help achieve this is termed “multi-domain operations”, whereby Nato aspires to orchestrate military activities across all operating domains and environments and to be synchronised with non-military activities and organisations.

Politics matter as much as military power

A second challenge lies within Nato itself. The alliance often appears unified when confronted by major crises. Yet beneath that unity remain substantial differences in strategic outlook. Poland and the Baltic states naturally view Russia as the central threat. Southern European members frequently devote more attention to instability in North Africa and the Mediterranean. Larger powers bring global interests that smaller allies do not necessarily share.

At the same time, political shifts across Europe are creating additional complexity. The rise of nationalist and populist parties in Europe, such as the recent election of the AfD in regional elections in Germany, does not automatically weaken Nato. In some countries, these movements support higher defence spending and tougher policies towards Russia. In others, they are more sceptical of international commitments and multilateral institutions.

The consequence is not necessarily division, but increased diversity in how security threats are perceived and prioritised. Research on alliance cohesion consistently identifies differing threat perceptions and domestic political interests as potential sources of tension within Nato decision-making.

Concern, not panic

The temptation is to interpret recent statements and proposals as evidence that Nato fears war. A better interpretation is that Nato fears uncertainty.

The alliance faces an adversary willing to employ hybrid tactics below the threshold of open conflict and must adapt to a transatlantic relationship in which European allies are expected to take greater responsibility for their own defence. And it must preserve political cohesion among 32 states with increasingly diverse domestic politics and strategic priorities.

That is a serious challenge. But it is not panic.

Bab al-Mandeb Strait’s shipping traffic comes to halt amid conflict in Yemen

By
IwPost
-
0
bab-al-mandeb-strait’s-shipping-traffic-comes-to-halt-amid-conflict-in-yemen
Bab al-Mandeb Strait’s shipping traffic comes to halt amid conflict in Yemen

Escalating conflict off Yemen’s western coast brought shipping traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to a standstill, threatening a critical chokepoint for global logistics, Anadolu reports.

The waterway is facing its quietest days ever, coupled with the crisis in global trade and energy supply due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait carries 10% of global maritime trade and accounts for 12% of crude oil shipments. It has become a weak point in the global supply chain due to the military developments in the region.

The resurgence of conflict in Yemen since July altered the map of control of the region, as the Houthis secured the entire province of Hodeidah and advanced westward to Taiz, seizing Red Sea coastal cities like Mokha and the routes providing access to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

After taking over Mokha, the Houthis captured the Hanish archipelago, the Mayun island, and the town of Dhubab, all located around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The capture of the Mayun island, located at the entrance to the western channel, raised security risks to the highest level.

An average of 33 ships transit the waterway each day, but traffic fell 88%, with only four vessels passing through in the past 24 hours, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) PortWatch data.

READ: Houthis deny threat to Mecca from Yemen

The passage of oil and chemical tankers fell 91%, while only one ship passed in the last 24 hours.

Container ship traffic declined 86% below the average at the same time.

The few ships that were able to transit the waterway were flying the flags of Panama, Singapore, Liberia, and Ethiopia.

The Bab al-Mandeb Strait serves as the most critical southern gateway for goods and oil traveling from Asia to Europe via the Suez Canal, as well as for commodities bound for Asia.

Global shippers and energy firms are losing this safe passage amid escalating military tensions and continue to reroute their vessels around the southern tip of Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.

Circumventing the African continent extends voyage durations by weeks and causes freight and insurance costs to surge.

The Houthi’s intensifying pressure on the strait could lead to a new wave of global oil shocks, analysts say.

The bottleneck in the region is affecting alternative bypass plans for global energy routes.

Saudi Arabia is able to transport its crude oil directly to Red Sea ports by relying on its East-West Crude Pipeline, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, but oil tankers loading cargo at these ports and heading south toward global markets have to transit the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

Blockading the strait would threaten the viability of the route that bypasses the already conflict-ridden Strait of Hormuz.

OPINION: Aramco is not the Kaaba

Data of 700 European Revolut customers compromised in hack, attackers demand $3m ransom

By
IwPost
-
0
data-of-700-european-revolut-customers-compromised-in-hack,-attackers-demand-$3m-ransom
Data of 700 European Revolut customers compromised in hack, attackers demand $3m ransom


The public prosecutor’s office in Reggio Calabria has opened an investigation into a case involving the banking services company Revolut, founded in London, which is now reportedly being blackmailed.

A group of hackers requested sensitive data from the bank using a compromised institutional email account belonging to the Reggio Calabria prefecture.

The digital bank has confirmed that data belonging to around 680 European customers has been affected, but that their funds have not been touched.

According to the Financial Times, which contacted the cybercriminals via Telegram, the group calls itself “iamnotavillain” and posted on its website on Wednesday afternoon a ransom demand for 3 million dollars, equivalent to 2.61 million euros.

If they do not receive the money within 24 hours, the hackers are threatening to sell the sensitive data to other criminal organisations.

The National Anti-Mafia and Counter-Terrorism Directorate is also working on the case, as it concerns a government body. The cybercrime division of the police says it was a highly sophisticated operation, but several points still need to be clarified.
An unusual ransom demand

The group posted the ransom demand on its site on the dark web. The Financial Times (source in Italian) notes that making such a demand public is unusual; typically, ransom and extortion attempts are made privately at first and only made public if the targets refuse to pay.

In this case, however, the British newspaper received a message demanding that Revolut transfer “6,000 XMR / 3,000,000 $… otherwise all the data will be sold and you will have blood on your hands”.

XMR is the ticker symbol for the cryptocurrency Monero, often used in illegal contexts because it is difficult to trace.

The criminal group also told the newspaper that this was the first time it had used its site for a ransom demand and that it had not yet contacted the bank to open negotiations.

After making the ransom demand public, the hackers sent the Financial Times a 60-second screen recording showing an unidentified user scrolling through a collection of documents, possibly belonging to Revolut.

The information contained in the documents taken from Revolut is said to include passport details, driving licence data, other identity documents and photographs. The hackers claim to hold a total of 147 gigabytes of data.
How far the investigation has progressed

Prosecutors are considering the offence of intrusion into an IT system of public interest. An initial report from the cybercrime police indicates that the operation, which lasted for months, was highly sophisticated, and it is still not certain whether a computer at the Reggio Calabria prefecture or at Italy’s Interior Ministry was compromised.

Experts are also trying to establish whether the institutional email account from which the requests originated was infiltrated or cloned.

Alongside the national Anti-Mafia and Counter-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office, the Italian data protection authority has also stepped in, immediately launching checks for possible security breaches at Italian banks and urging data-protection officers to carry out a “prompt review” and, if any vulnerabilities are found, to notify the authority immediately.

The Italian privacy watchdog has also contacted its counterpart in Lithuania, where Revolut’s registered office is located, starting an exchange of information to strengthen efforts to counter the threat.

The investigation will determine how the offence was carried out and whether other public bodies were also affected.

Via Revolut

High School Football Player Dies After Suffering In-Game Injury

By
IwPost
-
0
high-school-football-player-dies-after-suffering-in-game-injury
High School Football Player Dies After Suffering In-Game Injury


A North Carolina high school football community is mourning the heartbreaking death of a 15-year-old player who died just days after being injured during a game.

Davion Fewell, a junior varsity football player at Page High School in Greensboro, was injured Thursday, Sept. 10, during a home game against rival Grimsley High School.

Fewell was taken to a hospital following the injury but died Sunday, Sept. 13, according to his family and local reports.

Exactly what happened to the teenager during the game has not been publicly disclosed.

Guilford County Schools confirmed that Fewell suffered an injury while playing and was later hospitalized, but officials have not revealed the specific nature of the injury or his official cause of death.

The circumstances surrounding what happened are still being examined, according to local station WFMY.

“Guilford County Schools is saddened by the loss to our school community,” the district said in a statement. “Our thoughts are with their family, teammates, coaches and classmates.”

The devastating news has shaken students, coaches and families throughout the Greensboro school community.

Page Pirates Football announced that a candlelight vigil will be held at the school’s stadium Thursday, Sept. 17, at 7:30 p.m. to remember the young athlete.

The team described Fewell as “truly a great kid” and encouraged the community to fill the stadium in his honor.

“We hope to see a packed stadium celebrating a beautiful life,” the team said.

Guilford County Schools has also activated its crisis-response team to provide grief counseling and other support to students and staff at Page High School following Fewell’s death.

Help is also coming from a familiar name in the football world.

The D.J. Reader Foundation has offered to help Fewell’s family with funeral and burial expenses, according to the school district. Reader, an NFL defensive lineman and former Grimsley High School player, has maintained ties to the Greensboro community through his foundation.

Greensboro Police also publicly offered condolences to Fewell’s family, friends, classmates, coaches and school staff.

Fewell’s death has hit particularly hard because the injury occurred during a junior varsity matchup between two longtime Greensboro-area high school rivals.

Page High School sits just north of downtown Greensboro and fields its teams as the Page Pirates. The Sept. 10 game was against nearby Grimsley High School.

For now, major questions remain about exactly what happened on the field.

Officials have not announced the type of injury Fewell suffered, and no official cause of death has been made public.

As the community waits for more answers, Page High School is preparing to gather Thursday night to remember a 15-year-old athlete whose life ended far too soon.

The US sells more to Brazil than it buys – but Trump is slapping steep tariffs on its exports anyway

By
IwPost
-
0
the-us-sells-more-to-brazil-than-it-buys-–-but-trump-is-slapping-steep-tariffs-on-its-exports-anyway
The US sells more to Brazil than it buys – but Trump is slapping steep tariffs on its exports anyway

President Donald Trump has generally tried to justify his tariffs by asserting that they can help narrow the trade deficits the U.S. runs with most of the world. That argument is based on the fact that nearly all countries sell Americans more than they buy from the United States.

But the case of Brazil is different.

The U.S. announced a 25% tariff on Brazilian goods on July 15, 2026. A second measure, introduced eight days later, added another 12.5 percentage points on much of that trade. Both took effect on July 24, bringing the total to 37.5% where they overlap.

Here the imbalance goes the other way. U.S. exports to South America’s biggest economy have exceeded its imports for years. In 2025, American companies exported about US$54 billion in goods to Brazil, mainly refined fuel, aircraft parts, industrial machinery, fertilizer and electronics. They imported about $40 billion in Brazilian goods, mostly crude oil, semi-finished steel, coffee, orange juice, wood pulp, beef and passenger jets built by Embraer, the world’s third-largest aircraft maker.

In total, the U.S. ran a $14 billion trade surplus with Brazil.

Trump is discouraging Brazilian imports anyway. And this is his second attempt to do so. He announced a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods in July 2025, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February 2026, along with most of his other tariffs.

As scholars of international political economy who study U.S. trade policy and Brazil’s trade negotiations, we are researching why the U.S. imposed tariffs on Brazil despite Brazil’s trade deficit with the U.S., and how Brazil is responding.

In our view, this dispute was never really about trade. It began with Trump’s objections to a criminal case against former President Jair Bolsonaro – his political ally in Brazil. Today, with Brazil on the verge of a presidential election, standing up to Washington could prove a winning argument for the incumbent, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Making many exceptions

The administration spared 471 Brazilian products from the tariffs, among them coffee, wood and wood products, crude oil, natural gas, fertilizer, orange juice and pig iron. Most of the exempted goods are commodities and industrial inputs that American buyers would have trouble replacing quickly.

What stayed on the list is mostly manufactured: shoes, clothing, furniture, machinery and ethanol, the sugarcane-based motor fuel. Brazilian footwear and apparel, which compete on price in American stores, received no exemption at all.

While talks have deadlocked, in-person meetings are scheduled for Sept. 30 on the sidelines of a Group of 20 trade meeting in Wisconsin that will take place shortly before Brazilians go to the polls.

A man harvests coffee.

The U.S. is making exceptions for some Brazilian exports, including coffee, for which it would be hard to find replacements. Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images

Landing on American companies

Goods worth a total of $94 billion moved between the two countries in 2025, far below the volume of U.S. trade with Canada, Mexico, China or the European Union. But Brazil ranks among the 17 biggest trading partners of the United States in terms of the flow of goods, ahead of Spain, Australia and Saudi Arabia.

The goods still facing tariffs are largely industrial inputs rather than shelf-ready products. So the cost of Trump’s tariffs is mainly landing on U.S. companies, which are the ones that pay when the goods arrive at the border.

Trump’s ability to use tariffs to push Brazil to change policies his administration objects to is limited because Washington’s trade-related leverage over Brazil has been shrinking for years. China surpassed the U.S. as Brazil’s largest trading partner in 2009 and has widened its lead since then. In 2025, China bought roughly 29% of Brazil’s exports and the United States only 11%.

The erosion of Brazil’s reliance on the U.S. market limits what Trump’s tariffs can accomplish. It helps explain why, when Washington slapped tariffs on imports from the whole world in 2025, Brazilian exporters could largely sell their wares elsewhere.

The pressure may be self-defeating. In August 2026, White House adviser Peter Navarro and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent published a report accusing about 40 economies, including Brazil, of helping China route goods around U.S. tariffs. Yet the more Washington restricts Brazilian access to the American market, the more attractive China becomes as a buyer of what Brazil’s selling.

A small United jet lands at an airport.

A United Airlines Embraer 175 plane, owned by Republic Airways, lands at LaGuardia Airport on June 3, 2026. Brazil’s Embraer is the world’s third-largest aircraft manufacturer. Al Drago/Getty Images)

Why Trump is targeting Brazil

Trump didn’t emphasize trade-related concerns when he announced the 50% tariff in July 2025. Instead, he criticized the criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, which Trump has called a “witch hunt.” The U.S. government also accused Brazil’s Supreme Court of censoring American social media platforms within the South American country’s borders.

Bolsonaro, who once aligned Brasília with Washington, cannot run again because he is serving a 27-year sentence for plotting a coup. But his son, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, is on the ballot.

Flávio Bolsonaro says he urged Trump not to impose tariffs. But his brother Eduardo, a Brazilian congressman, spent months in Washington lobbying the Trump administration to punish Brazilian officials over their father’s prosecution and welcomed the tariffs.

Even so, poll results point to a statistical dead heat between Flávio Bolsonaro and Lula. Another 13 minor candidates are also seeking the presidency.

Answering Trump’s tariffs

After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration’s first round of tariffs, it tried using a different legal tool: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law lets a president retaliate against foreign practices it deems unfair.

In the second trade investigation, the U.S. placed additional tariffs on Brazil and 59 other countries, which the Trump administration said had to do with the alleged use of forced labor in their supply chains.

Brazil initially lacked the means to respond to either round of U.S. tariffs.

But in 2025, Brazil’s Congress passed a new “economic reciprocity” law that borrows Section 301’s logic. It allows the executive branch to determine whether a measure taken by a foreign country harms Brazilian competitiveness. If it does, the government may impose tariffs as countermeasures or suspend intellectual property obligations.

Brazil opened its first case under that law on Aug. 13, 2026. It’s against the United States.

To be sure, launching a case does not guarantee that Brazil will retaliate. The procedure runs through seven administrative stages that together can take more than six months.

Brazil is also working on a slower, multilateral strategy. It has taken the dispute to the World Trade Organization, the Geneva-based body that writes and enforces global trade rules. The first stage of any WTO case is a round of formal talks called consultations, which the two governments are required to attempt before the dispute can go further.

Because the consultations with Washington ended in August without agreement, Brazil says it will request a formal WTO dispute panel, which would rule on whether the U.S. tariffs break the organization’s rules.

China has also joined that complaint, with India, Indonesia, South Africa, Colombia and Egypt signing on as interested parties.

An older man in a straw hat confers with a younger man with a beard with a Brazilian flag in the background.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, left, confers with Finance Minister Dario Durigan on Aug. 5, 2026, about two months before voters cast their ballots. Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Image

Why Brazil may not hit back

We consider any official acts of retaliation against the U.S. by Brazil to be unlikely, due to the inherent power imbalance.

The U.S. consumer market is much larger than Brazil’s, and there are other asymmetries. The dollar-based financial system and Washington’s control over critical technologies give the United States ways to escalate trade battles that Brazil can’t counter. A trade fight could migrate to areas where Brazil has no way to respond in kind.

Canada’s situation shows what the alternative looks like. After its trade talks with Washington collapsed, Ottawa answered U.S. tariffs in August 2026 with tariffs of up to 50% on hundreds of U.S. goods, deepening a trade war between two countries that had been among the world’s closest trading partners. Canada sends roughly three-quarters of its exports to the United States, which gives its retaliation real bite – even if those tariffs may jeopardize its own economy. Brazil lacks that leverage.

Even if Brazil never retaliates, the steps it’s taking in that direction let the government show voters that it is doing something.

Lula’s approval ratings, which had been falling, recovered after he made national sovereignty the heart of his response to Washington. His officials say they don’t expect a deal with Washington to lift the tariffs before the Oct. 4 elections.

And whether Brazil ever activates its version of Section 301 to address what it sees as unfair trade practices may depend on who wins Brazil’s presidential election.

Cambodia is closing scam centers but needs help tracking the money

By
IwPost
-
0
cambodia-is-closing-scam-centers-but-needs-help-tracking-the-money
Cambodia is closing scam centers but needs help tracking the money

A scam center bust in Cambodia. Photo: Cambodia Ministry of Information

Closing an online scam center stops criminal activity, but it does not dismantle the network behind it. 

The people directing the operation may be in another country, while the money can move across borders through bank accounts or digital payment systems. If we want to eliminate online scams rather than simply force them to move elsewhere, we have to follow the money. That is the next phase of Cambodia’s campaign.

Combating online scams is a national priority for Cambodia.  Our goal is not just to close sites but to pursue the criminal masterminds and financial networks behind them.

Our campaign is delivering tangible results. Over the last 12 months, Cambodian authorities investigated 832 suspected locations and carried out crackdowns at 663. Eighty-six scam compounds have been dismantled and brought under control pending legal seizure.

Authorities have forwarded 446 cases to court involving 3,927 accused from 29 nationalities, including ringleaders and accomplices. Regulators have also taken action against 27 casinos linked to online scams, revoking 18 licenses and suspending nine.

Recent arrests of high-profile businesspeople and senior officials show that the campaign is reaching beyond low-level offenders. Cambodia’s Anti-Corruption Unit has also acted in four cases involving 15 senior officials and law-enforcement officers suspected of involvement.  No one is above the law.

The next step is to make these gains permanent by ensuring that closed operations remain closed and criminal networks cannot simply reappear elsewhere.  We are already seeing those networks change tactics, moving away from large compounds toward smaller, decentralized operations.  That makes it even more important to pursue the people and financial networks behind them rather than focusing only on physical sites.

In April, Cambodia strengthened its legal framework with the Law on Combating Online Scams.  The law gives authorities stronger tools to pursue those who organize or support these crimes and to trace and seize criminal proceeds.

Financial institutions and other regulated businesses must report suspicious transactions to the Cambodia Financial Intelligence Unit, which shares relevant intelligence with investigators. This helps authorities trace criminal proceeds and identify the people behind scam operations.

Cambodian authorities have already frozen more than $300 million in bank accounts linked to online scams, with additional assets undergoing freezing procedures and assessment. But once the money crosses a border, international cooperation becomes essential.

A victim of an online scam may be in London or Los Angeles while the people running the scam are thousands of miles away. Criminal proceeds can pass through several jurisdictions before reaching those who ultimately control the operation. No police force can follow that chain alone.

In July, the United Kingdom assumed the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force, which sets global standards against money laundering and terrorist financing.  Under the UK’s leadership, FATF has made combating fraud a priority, including the financial flows linked to scam compounds.  It is focused on strengthening financial intelligence and international information sharing.

Cambodia supports that approach.  We continue to work with international law-enforcement partners and through the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering.  In July, FBI Director Kash Patel visited Cambodia to discuss scam operations targeting Americans and to strengthen cooperation between US and Cambodian law enforcement. 

Cooperation against transnational crime should cut across geopolitical divisions.  The same networks target people in the United States and China, among many other countries.

International cooperation will be a focus of the International Conference on Combating Online Scams (ICCOS 2026), which Cambodia is hosting in Phnom Penh on September 23 and 24.  Participants include representatives from China, the UK, and the United States, including the FBI, alongside governments from across Asia and international organizations such as Interpol.

The theme is “Acting Together towards Breaking the Chain and Eradication of Online Scams.”  The challenge is to turn international cooperation into operational cooperation.  Financial intelligence must move quickly across borders to identify criminal proceeds before they are moved beyond investigators’ reach.  Countries also need to be able to freeze and recover criminal proceeds more effectively.

There is also a human cost to consider.  Many people found inside scam operations have themselves been trafficked or coerced, while victims around the world have lost their savings to these crimes.  Protecting those who have been exploited also requires cross-border cooperation.  Following the money helps us pursue those who profit from both trafficking and fraud.

Cambodia will continue to disrupt scam operations and prosecute those responsible. We will work to ensure that closed operations cannot simply reopen elsewhere. But these are transnational criminal networks, and lasting success requires international action.

Cambodia is doing its part.  In Phnom Penh later this September, we will work with our international partners to dismantle the financial networks behind these scams and cut off the profits that keep this global criminal industry alive.

Chhay Sinarith is a Senior Minister in the Cambodian Government and the Vice-Chairman of the Commission for Combating Online Scams.  He is leading Cambodia’s nationwide campaign to dismantle online scam networks and implement the country’s new Law on Combating Online Scams.

‘Limited and Pragmatic’: Saudi Analyst Sets Boundaries on Cooperation With Israel

By
IwPost
-
0
‘limited-and-pragmatic’:-saudi-analyst-sets-boundaries-on-cooperation-with-israel
‘Limited and Pragmatic’: Saudi Analyst Sets Boundaries on Cooperation With Israel


Riyadh and Israel increasingly confront overlapping threats from Iran and the Houthis, but political constraints continue to limit direct military cooperation

A secret gathering of senior US, Israeli and Arab military commanders in Germany has offered a rare glimpse of the security coordination taking shape across the Middle East as Saudi Arabia confronts a renewed Houthi offensive and Washington remains heavily focused on its war with Iran.

The meeting, held last week and organized by US Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Adm. Brad Cooper, brought together military chiefs from Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt, according to Axios, which first reported the gathering. CENTCOM confirmed that it hosted senior military leaders from eight Middle Eastern countries in Germany to discuss opportunities for strengthening regional security cooperation. The conference was not publicly announced in advance.

Its significance lies less in the existence of military contacts—which have developed incrementally for years—than in the circumstances surrounding the gathering.

The commanders met as the conflict with Iran continues to strain American forces and Gulf security, while the Houthis have expanded their position along Yemen’s Red Sea coast. Reuters reported that Houthi forces seized Mocha and Perim Island during their latest offensive, increasing their leverage near Bab el Mandeb, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

The developments have created a difficult security environment for Saudi Arabia. Riyadh must contend with renewed missile and drone threats from Yemen while disruptions around both the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz complicate its energy and maritime calculations.

Yet the Germany meeting should not automatically be interpreted as the birth of a formal Arab-Israeli military alliance.

Abdulaziz Alshaabani, a Saudi political analyst, cautioned against reading the gathering as evidence that Riyadh is preparing for direct military cooperation with Israel.

The Germany meeting is significant, but I do not see it as evidence that Saudi Arabia is moving toward direct military cooperation with Israel

“The Germany meeting is significant, but I do not see it as evidence that Saudi Arabia is moving toward direct military cooperation with Israel,” Alshaabani told The Media Line. “Any intelligence coordination would likely remain limited and pragmatic, while Riyadh continues to rely primarily on its own security mechanisms and broader regional frameworks,” he added.

Saudi Arabia and Israel share concerns about Iran and, increasingly, the Houthis, but they do not have diplomatic relations. Operational necessity can produce intelligence exchanges, deconfliction or parallel military planning without resolving the political constraints that have prevented formal normalization.

The regional security architecture also predates the current crisis. In July, CENTCOM said the United States and regional partners were operating what it described as a large active air- and missile-defense umbrella across the Middle East. The command said a Middle Eastern air-defense coordination cell established in January was intended to improve information sharing, threat warnings and responses to regional contingencies.

That does not mean every country represented in Germany operates within a single integrated command structure. It does show that efforts to coordinate regional defenses were underway before the latest Houthi escalation.

Giuseppe Dentice, an analyst at the Observatory on the Mediterranean (OSMED), sees the current moment through the erosion of confidence in Washington and the resulting search by Gulf states for additional security options.

“What is actually happening is what no one wanted: at this moment, there is total chaos,” Dentice told The Media Line. “The problem is that it is political chaos in which there is no real leadership. The United States is pulling itself out of everything, and the most paradoxical thing is that it is also part of this problem,” he added.

For Dentice, governments are responding pragmatically rather than ideologically.

“Everyone is acting for themselves, and within this ‘everyone for themselves’ approach, the Gulf states are the most prepared to seek some form of action,” he said. “Not so much to resolve the issue, because at this moment neither what is happening in the Red Sea nor what is happening in Hormuz can really be resolved, but rather to try to find some kind of compromise through diplomacy,” he added.

Washington has so far resisted Saudi requests for direct American military action against the Houthis.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman sought US military assistance as Houthi pressure increased, according to Reuters, but Washington limited its involvement to intelligence and targeting support rather than direct strikes. Cooper met the crown prince in Jeddah this week as the crisis intensified.

The United States has also maintained a separate channel with the Houthis. Reuters reported that American officials met Houthi representatives at the US Embassy in Muscat, Oman, over the weekend. Sources familiar with the talks said the Houthi delegation pledged not to target US or Israeli vessels and said it would continue observing its previous arrangement with Washington, while excluding Saudi shipping from those commitments. The State Department declined to confirm the meeting.

For Alexander Portnoy, an independent military and geopolitical analyst, this environment makes behind-the-scenes cooperation more consequential than public declarations of alliance.

Military contacts and mutually beneficial cooperation between these countries ceased to be sensational news a long time ago

“Military contacts and mutually beneficial cooperation between these countries ceased to be sensational news a long time ago,” Portnoy told The Media Line. He argued that disclosure of such contacts can itself serve as strategic messaging.

Portnoy expects any Israeli contribution to a regional response to Yemen to remain discreet.

“Yes, but any Israeli involvement would take place behind the scenes,” he said when asked whether Saudi Arabia and other regional states could coordinate against the Houthis without direct American combat participation.

Israel and Saudi Arabia increasingly face the same types of weapons: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and long-range drones. Shared threats, though, do not necessarily produce a shared political strategy.

Alshaabani rejected more dramatic assessments suggesting that the latest Houthi advances make a ground offensive into Saudi Arabia the likely next stage.

“I think the word ‘invasion’ is too strong in this context,” he said. “Saudi Arabia is a vast country, while the Houthis remain a militia with limited capabilities. I do not see a ground invasion as the most likely scenario at this stage,” he added.

Instead, he said, the immediate danger is that the Houthis could exploit their new positions inside Yemen.

The more immediate concern is the Houthis expanding their control in western Yemen and using that position to intensify missile, drone and maritime attacks against Saudi Arabia

“The more immediate concern is the Houthis expanding their control in western Yemen and using that position to intensify missile, drone and maritime attacks against Saudi Arabia,” he said.

The latest Houthi gains have increased the group’s ability to threaten Saudi territory and maritime traffic, but its territorial advances have so far been concentrated inside Yemen and along the Red Sea coast.

Saudi concerns have nevertheless intensified. Riyadh said this week that it intercepted a Houthi drone south of Mecca. The Houthis denied targeting the holy city while acknowledging other operations against Saudi targets.

The kingdom is also seeking additional support. Riyadh has approached partners including Egypt, Pakistan, the UK and France as the conflict strains its missile-defense resources. No broad regional military intervention has materialized.

For Dentice, the central question is less whether a new alliance suddenly emerges than how long individual governments can absorb several interconnected crises.

“There is a strong interest among virtually all the actors in preventing Bab el-Mandeb from becoming another Hormuz,” he said. “But we are already very close to that situation. Everyone risks making the same mistakes, because even sending a strong military signal can become counterproductive. Not because the Houthis are militarily superior, but because they retain the ability to strike strategic assets,” he added.

That vulnerability is particularly visible in the energy sector. The Strait of Hormuz remains severely disrupted, while attacks have placed additional pressure on alternative Saudi export infrastructure. On Wednesday, preliminary ship-tracking data showed only three commercial vessels transiting Hormuz, down from 12 the previous day and a 10-day average of 17, according to Reuters. Traffic through Bab el Mandeb also remained depressed. Vessels operating with their tracking systems switched off would not necessarily appear in those figures.

The existence of several active military theaters does not necessarily mean they will merge into a single regional war.

“I do not think the risk of integrating these separate theaters of war into a wider regional conflict is high,” Portnoy said.

He also viewed the Germany meeting as evidence that regional coordination is still being worked out rather than proof that a collective defense mechanism is already operational.

“If these countries were already prepared for a collective response, I do not think the meeting in Germany would have been necessary,” he said.

The Media Line sought additional comment from the US Defense Department and contacted current US military experts and former senior US military officers for their assessments but received no responses by publication time.

The Germany gathering reveals both how far regional security contacts have advanced and where their limits remain. Israel and several Arab governments face overlapping missile, drone and maritime threats and have reasons to exchange information and coordinate defenses. They also maintain sharply different relationships with Iran, Israel and the United States.

Dentice similarly described Saudi strategy as one of selective engagement rather than permanent alignment, pointing to the recently signed Mecca Joint Defense Agreement with Turkey and Pakistan. The pact contains a collective-defense commitment, though its full text has not been made public and questions remain about how its provisions would operate in practice.

The Saudis are willing to talk to anyone, but not to bind themselves completely to anyone

“The Saudis are willing to talk to anyone, but not to bind themselves completely to anyone,” he said. “The same applies to the Mecca agreement. It is not a binding agreement; it is based on the availability of the actors involved,” he added.

123...938Page 1 of 938
0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY