Early Warning

In remarks on 2 March 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of sending American ground troops into Iran if it became necessary. However, he didn’t acknowledge that such a move would carry serious risks given Iran’s size and military capability. Any U.S. ground invasion would likely involve significant casualties and could fail to achieve its goals.  Trump has generally shown reluctance to engage in large-scale ground wars. While he has authorized military actions, including airstrikes, against Iran and other states in recent months, his preference historically has been for limited use of force, such as air power and specialized units, rather than deploying tens of thousands of troops.   Part of this approach stems from his broader view that prolonged, chaotic conflicts are unpredictable and often produce uncertain outcomes. Major ground combat operations can create widespread instability and make strategic consequences hard to forecast. Throughout both his first term and the early part of his second term, Trump has shown no strong inclination to commit large numbers of U.S. ground forces abroad.   Trump and Bibi (also known as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) recognize that forcing a full regime change in Tehran would be one of the toughest strategic tasks imaginable. Iran’s political and military structure is robust and not solely driven by personalist rule; it is anchored in a religiously grounded system that has endured since 1979. With the challenges of a successful ground invasion in mind, their current strategy relies on a combination of military pressure and other techniques intended to weaken the regime over time, though there is no guarantee this will bring about its collapse.

“We need it for defence.” With these words, U.S. President Donald Trump sought to frame Greenland as a question of national security. The island’s vast reserves of critical minerals and its strategic position in the Arctic have long made it geopolitically significant, yet Trump’s rhetoric elevated it into a symbol of broader American ambitions. This move prompted a rare joint statement by the leaders of seven NATO member states, who rejected any attempt to annex Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. Coming alongside U.S. actions elsewhere, including the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and threats of intervention in other regions, these developments have fuelled growing concern within NATO that Washington is advancing a new international order driven primarily by its own interests. The prospect of Greenland’s annexation therefore raises serious questions not only about the future of the alliance, but also reveals Europe’s weakened position in the international system and its limited capacity to resist American pressure.

Tensions between the United States and Venezuela have exploded into a forceful attack that has resulted in the capture and detention of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. President Donald Trump has accused President Maduro of instigating a mass migration of Venezuelan citizens, being involved in the fentanyl drug trade, and stealing oil wealth to fund drug operations. Consequently, President Trump authorized attacks on Venezuelan vessels, which he claimed to be transporting drugs to the U.S. while also increasing the number of troops stationed in the Caribbean Sea. Now that President Maduro has been captured after months of U.S. escalation, there is an uncertainty regarding the future of Venezuela, the region, and the world.   The attack as part of Operation Absolute Resolve can be seen as an attempt by President Trump to force regime change in Venezuela. The capture of President Maduro could have serious ramifications not only for the warring factions but the regions of South America and the Caribbean as well as the world. This may come in the form of collapsing institutions and industrial sectors such as energy, a loss of credibility for the U.S., regional destabilization brought on by a devastating refugee crisis, while also having a negative impact on the global economy.

For most of modern history, political systems have been built around the assumption that human beings, rather than territory, rulers, or abstract notions of progress, are the central subjects of governance. Laws, economies, and institutions have been justified, at least in theory, by their obligation to protect human life, manage conflict, and improve collective wellbeing over time. Even when unevenly applied, this principle imposed an ethical constraint on power, requiring political authority to answer, however imperfectly, to human needs and consent.   Today, that assumption is rapidly eroding. A small group of technology elites increasingly speak and act as if humanity itself is provisional, a stage to be surpassed rather than a condition to be preserved. This belief is no longer confined to speculative philosophy. It is shaping how AI is built, how labour is governed, how inequality is rationalised, and how long-term political authority is imagined. The result is not merely a clash of ideas, but an emerging institutional crisis, in which decisions affecting billions are guided by a worldview that has never been democratically endorsed.

Since Brexit, the United Kingdom (UK) has been experiencing a governance issue, as the Conservative Party suffered from instability due to numerous leadership changes, while the recently elected Labour Party lacks the ambition and confidence needed to effectively govern. Combined with the shocks stemming from Brexit, COVID-19, and the Russia-Ukraine War, the UK has experienced economic stagnation and the deterioration of public services, which has resulted in British nationals migrating abroad.   One of these locations is the UAE, more specifically, Dubai. There are approximately 240,000 British nationals currently living in Dubai, with more to join as there was a 420% increase in internet searches in the UK centered on moving to Dubai. Those are staggering statistics, and the number is only going to grow as more British nationals across the socio-economic spectrum continue to migrate to Dubai. However, the reasons explaining British migration to Dubai are not as simple as lower taxes, security, and great weather. One can argue the rise of British migration to Dubai can be attributed to a desire to break from a ridged class system, declinism, and emotional turmoil brought on by the cost-of-living crisis.

This Pulse survey, conducted in November 2025, explores public attitudes toward AI in Arab societies, with a particular focus on reliance on foreign AI models and their impact on Arab values and identity. The findings highlight growing concerns about how AI systems may influence cultural norms, shape collective identity, and redefine societal priorities. By examining perceptions of the need for Arab-developed AI and views on who should lead its development, the survey offers insight into how technological dependence is increasingly understood as a strategic, cultural, and identity-related issue across the Arab world.

The National Security Strategy (NSS) defines the guiding vision of American power and provides a window into how the United States understands the international environment, identifies its priorities, and determines the political, military, and economic tools it will rely on to protect national interests. Accordingly, the NSS shapes defence planning, informs foreign policy doctrine, guides inter-agency action, and signals to allies and adversaries the direction of U.S. engagement in an evolving global landscape.   The 2025 NSS, issued by the Trump administration in November 2025, is a clear articulation of how this administration intends to position itself in a world marked by rising geopolitical fragmentation, sharpening competition, and growing domestic constraints. Its core purpose is to translate the administration’s worldview into a coherent framework that defines what the United States will prioritise, what it will deprioritise, and under what conditions it will expend political capital, economic leverage, or military force.   For the Middle East, understanding the 2025 NSS is essential because it captures the principles shaping America’s evolving posture toward the region. The strategy’s emphasis on burden-sharing, reduced military exposure, and transactional partnerships signals a shift in expectations for regional actors, while its focus on energy security, counterterrorism, and strategic competition with external powers continues to define the contours of U.S. interests. As a formal expression of how the administration interprets threats and opportunities, the NSS provides the clearest available roadmap of Washington’s intentions—and the framework within which its decisions toward the Middle East will be made in the years ahead.

The prolonged Russia-Ukraine War has been met with futile efforts to end it by several peace plans throughout nearly four years of war. Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump appears determined to end the war by pushing a peace plan in the last few months of 2025 and negotiating with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.   Many scenarios unfold for the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine War. Amid the ongoing peace negotiations, driven mainly by the U.S. and Russia’s push for Trump’s 28‑point plan and Ukraine’s counterproposal through the amended 19‑point plan, a settlement favouring Russia is increasingly possible, raising the question: if such a plan is adopted, how will the Eurasian scene change?

AI is reshaping international competition in ways that governments are only beginning to understand. The spread of AI-enabled cyber operations has created a new landscape in which intrusions unfold rapidly, cross borders with ease, and often leave behind little that can be reliably attributed to a specific actor. States now find themselves navigating an environment where responsibility is increasingly difficult to establish, and where strategic judgement becomes far more fragile.   While espionage and covert action have always operated in murky territory, the introduction of AI into these practices has accelerated the pace of events and weakened the signals that national security officials have traditionally relied upon. This shift demands sustained attention, not only because the technology is advancing quickly, but also because the risks associated with misinterpretation and unintended escalation are becoming sharper.

Across NATO, the next generation of forces is being built around a decisive shift toward replacing fuel-based systems with electricity and high-performance batteries. From unmanned systems and smart munitions to mobile command posts and sensor networks, the Alliance’s deterrence posture is becoming electric. The move promises faster deployment, reduced noise signatures, and fewer supply convoys. Yet, beneath this technological progress lies a growing structural risk.   Every step toward electrification deepens NATO’s exposure to fragile supply chains and volatile critical-mineral markets. Batteries are now the linchpin of power projection, but also a potential weak point in it. The Alliance’s ability to fight, deter, and coordinate operations could hinge on materials mined or processed far from NATO’s control. As warfare becomes increasingly digital and electric, NATO faces a strategic challenge of a new kind: not how to innovate faster, but how to secure the energy backbone of its deterrence, and prevent the tools of modernisation from becoming instruments of dependency.

On Feb. 14 2025, a drone struck the protective shield covering Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine. The attack caused a fire and damaged the steel cladding. As of Dec. 6 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has formally assessed the site and reported that the New Safe Confinement has now “lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability,” meaning it can no longer guarantee that radioactive material remains fully contained. Ukraine has blamed Russia for the strike, which Moscow denies, while international monitors warn that the risk to global nuclear safety is rising.

Artificial intelligence systems and data centres have increasingly become an integral part of modern day society. A KPMG survey focused on AI use found that 66% of respondents use AI for work and personal reasons, of which 38% of respondents claim to use AI on a daily or weekly basis and 28% use it semi-regularly. According to these results, a majority of the respondents rely on AI to carry out day to day functions whether it be for work, study, or personal reasons. Moreover, the reliance on AI has been extended to governments, global financial systems, and states, as these entities rely on AI systems to improve efficiency and speed of services provided. This shows how AI has become integrated into the fabric of global society.   Now imagine one day all AI systems and programs cease to function. While the chances of such an event happening are low, it is not impossible and the consequences of being overly reliant on AI systems can be devastating. The consequences of a global AI shutdown will impact the global economy as well as global geopolitics, which could lead to trillions disappearing from the stock market and national security disasters across the globe.