Special Editions

The military operations that unfolded over twelve days in June 2025 between Iran and Israel marked a sharp breakpoint in the trajectory of regional military balance. The confrontation resulted in a substantial erosion of Tehran’s military infrastructure and inflicted significant material losses. The depth of this operational failure was most evident in the near-total collapse of Iran’s integrated air-defence system, with confirmed intelligence assessments indicating that Israel succeeded in neutralising more than 80 surface-to-air missile batteries and destroying over 120 launch platforms. This effectively stripped Iranian airspace of its protective shield and imposed a state of absolute Israeli air superiority.   Amid this collapse, Tehran effectively lost its entire arsenal of the Russian-made S-300PMU2 (“S-300 PMU-2”) systems, which it had acquired in 2016 after protracted negotiations and at considerable financial cost. These systems were systematically destroyed between 2024 and 2025. Iran’s domestic air-defence industries, represented by the Bavar-373 and Khordad-15 systems, also demonstrated clear operational inadequacy when tested in a real combat environment.   This exposed a wide technological gap between Israel’s offensive capabilities and Iran’s defensive assets. The Iranian air-defence network failed to record the downing of a single manned Israeli fighter jet, and Iran’s ageing air force, reliant on pre-revolution legacy aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat, the Phantom, and the Tiger, supplemented by 1990s-era MiG-29s, stood incapable of competing or deterring effectively.   This total inability to contest the battlespace not only underscored tactical failure but delivered a decisive blow to the strategic assumptions underpinning Iran’s defence doctrine for decades, particularly its reliance on “asymmetric missile deterrence” and hybrid layered-defence networks.   Confronted with a reality in which its missile capabilities were neutralised and its aerial shield dismantled, the Iranian leadership was compelled to adopt a “post-war reset” strategy, launching an urgent acquisition campaign aimed at closing the technological gap by turning eastward towards Russia and China to rebuild its lost deterrence.   The fundamental question that will shape the next phase in the Middle East remains: Can this “hybrid deterrence”, comprising domestic missiles alongside imported, only partially integrated weapon systems, endure against an adversary that has already demonstrated both the willingness and the capability to deliver devastating strikes deep inside Iran?

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump issued sharp criticism of Europe, and while migration policies were not his only focus, his remarks on the topic were particularly striking. His criticism came shortly after he announced a policy to “permanently pause migration from what he called ‘third world countries’” following a National Guard shooting in Washington, highlighting his framing of migration as both a domestic security and international issue. The latest U.S. National Security Strategy under the Trump administration closely links European security to its migration policies, warning of what it describes as "civilisational erasure" from uncontrolled immigration and EU policies, and calling on Europe to enforce stricter border controls, support "patriotic" parties, and become more self-reliant. This approach is widely seen as critical of mainstream European leadership and supportive of far-right movements.   At the same time, far-right sentiment is gaining traction across Europe, visible in the electoral successes of parties such as France's National Rally, Italy's Lega, and Germany's Alternative for Germany. While public discourse often frames migration as a threat to security and civilisation, Western countries overlook a crucial point, which is that migration can be a dividend, contributing to economic growth. With populations ageing faster than the global average and shortages of labour in highly skilled professions, the West is increasingly dependent on migrants. The question is what might happen if far-right agendas succeed in curbing migration, and whether Western economies and security could sustain themselves without it.

The escalating water crisis in the Iranian capital, Tehran, portends profound strategic repercussions that strike at the heart of national security and internal stability. Field indicators and updated international data up to 2025 point to the city reaching a stage of “absolute water stress.” This reality is manifested in the sharp and unprecedented decline in surface and groundwater reserves, as an inevitable result of the combination of long-term drought waves with decades of structural mismanagement and excessive depletion of resources, which has led to a decrease in the levels of strategic reservoirs to critical levels that directly threaten the continuity of drinking water supplies for millions of residents. The official warnings, hinting at the possibility of the capital drying up within weeks unless emergency measures are taken, are acquiring serious demographic and social dimensions. The danger transcends mere water scarcity, raising grave concerns about widespread social unrest, the need to adopt drastic policies such as forced displacement, or even the serious discussion of relocating the capital. Therefore, a comprehensive reform of water resource management policies, the strengthening of dilapidated infrastructure, and the adoption of sustainable solutions are imperative to contain the crisis and avert the looming scenarios of economic and security collapse.

The United States dollar (USD) prominence as the main global reserve currency can be attributed to the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, which created a new international monetary order and directly linked major world currencies to the USD, which was itself pegged to gold at $35 per ounce. The USD quickly emerged as the primary medium of exchange for most commodity trades and international financial transactions as a result of this agreement, which concentrated trust and liquidity around the currency. In 1971, the Nixon Shock occurred when the United States (U.S.) ended direct USD–gold convertibility, weakening the USD. However, the scope and depth of U.S. financial markets and the petrodollar system - which mandated that oil exports be invoiced and paid in USD- made it incontrovertible, giving the U.S. “the exorbitant privilege”, as economist Valéry Giscard d’Estaing described it, of having substantial control over global monetary policy while financing trade and budget deficits.   It’s crucial to weigh this against factors that continue to uphold the USD’s hegemony though. The unmatched stability liquidity and depth of U.S. financial markets continue to attract global investors worldwide, preserving the USD’s position as the favored reserve asset. Since international trade, finance, and investment infrastructures are still heavily USD-centric, it is also challenging for alternative currencies to quickly replace the USD due to the vast global network effect that has been developed over decades. Moreover, the USD’s status as a “safe-haven” asset persists, particularly during periods of global uncertainty, sustaining demand.   Yet, this hegemonic status is now challenged structurally in ways increasingly understood as de-dollarization- that is, the deliberate reduction of the share of the USD in global trade invoicing, reserve holdings, and payment systems. Debates on the durability of U.S. monetary leadership have been ongoing for decades, but a number of forces have turned de-dollarization from an abstract concept into a global trend since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. That crisis exposed systemic vulnerabilities within USD-dependent financial networks, underscoring how U.S. monetary policy and financial shocks can transmit worldwide in destabilizing ways—especially across Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs).   This postwar order is increasingly under structural pressure from geopolitical fragmentation, rising U.S. debt, sanctions overreach, and the emergence of alternative payment systems. These pressures could lead to two different scenarios for the U.S. economy in a post-dollar world: a sudden collapse due to financial instability and inflation, or a gradual decline with persistently higher borrowing costs and the steady erosion of fiscal and geopolitical leverage. The latter is more likely but still represents a structural shift that redefines the balance of global economic power.

This investigative study adopts a rigorous, systematic analytical methodology to examine the true dimensions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wealth, illuminating substantial structural discrepancies between his officially declared income and his accumulated assets. Utilizing evidence-based financial investigation, the research identifies sustained and deliberate efforts to obscure financial transparency, primarily through sophisticated mechanisms such as offshore banking, the purchase of assets via shell or limited liability companies, and the use of aliases. Furthermore, the study deconstructs the institutional networks and patterns of quid pro quo influence that facilitate the continuous recirculation of privileges, economic benefits, and power among elite government officials and leading actors in the Israeli defense industry.   The study underscores the instrumental role of political crises, particularly The War on Gaza, as strategic junctures that enable the executive to maximize discretionary authority and circumvent traditional oversight mechanisms. Empirical findings indicate that Netanyahu directly benefited financially from the war by leveraging his expanded emergency powers to authorize high-value defense contracts outside standard competitive bidding processes. This approach resulted in an unprecedented windfall for defense sector entities closely associated with his inner circle. The war context also facilitated the diversion of public resources to support the interests of this network, ultimately institutionalizing mechanisms for influence-sharing among policymakers and leaders in the military-industrial complex. Consequently, the aggregate value of contracts executed during states of emergency surged dramatically, exemplifying the organic convergence of political and economic power within Netanyahu’s administration. The systematic exploitation of crises thus emerges as a central feature in the amplification of personal wealth and the consolidation of elite privileges within a closed governance structure.

Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump’s unpredictable decisions have become a puzzle to follow, let alone to anticipate. Amid this growing political turbulence, a dose of rational analysis is badly needed. His recent move on the H-1B visa program, for instance, has reverberated across the globe. Though seemingly aimed at harrassing India, the policy has instead cornered the United States itself, fueling economic strain, draining valuable talent, and unsettling the tech industry. The ripple effects are already visible in Silicon Valley and among those aspiring to join it. Yet, this turbulence also opens a window of opportunity. Nations in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf, if swift and strategic, could position themselves to attract the very talent cast aside by Washington. Still, seizing this chance is no straightforward task. It demands structural reforms, long-term vision, and proactive policies. Dislodging Silicon Valley from its pedestal is not impossible, but neither is it simple or automatic. What matters now is understanding the impact on the U.S., its economy, its talent pool, and recognizing what ambitious countries must do if they wish to challenge the world’s current tech giant.

As many regional and global powers rush to reshape the Middle East to serve their strategic interests, the past two years have been marked by a cascade of transformative and often tumultuous events. These include the Israeli army’s large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip following October 7, efforts to diminish Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, intensifying Israeli military operations against Iran, and most recently, a wave of Western countries intending to formally recognise a Palestinian state alongside Israel’s announcement of plans for the annexation of the West Bank and a comprehensive occupation of the Gaza Strip.   Together, these rapid developments not only underscore deepening conflict and instability but also actively fuel the emerging discourse about the "New Middle East", a strategic framework envisioned by key actors outside of the region that seeks to redefine the geopolitical, security, economic, and diplomatic order of the region. The intertwining of hard power manoeuvres, shifting alliances, and economic realignments signals a significant recalibration rather than a mere continuation of the status quo.   In 2025, the potential rise in Western recognition of Palestinian statehood reflects growing international dissatisfaction with existing diplomatic frameworks and a push to rethink longstanding regional issues, directly challenging Israel’s traditional security and diplomatic calculus. Concurrently, Israel’s authorised military plan to take full control of Gaza exemplifies a decisive shift toward hardening its territorial and security posture, marking an unprecedented phase in Israeli-Palestinian relations and regional politics.   The confluence of these developments amplifies the narratives and policies underpinning the New Middle East: a vision premised on assertive state-centric realignments, expanded normalisation efforts, a recalibrated balance of power, and an economy-driven model of regional transactions. This evolving order encompasses ambitions to diminish Iranian influence, redefine Palestinian sovereignty on new terms, and facilitate deeper economic and security integration among select regional actors.   Ultimately, these events serve both as catalysts and manifestations of the "New Middle East" discourse. They reflect a region in flux where entrenched conflicts and new diplomatic initiatives are simultaneously eroding old paradigms and opening pathways for a fundamentally restructured Middle Eastern landscape.   This paper critically explores how the recent rapid developments in the Middle East contribute to shaping competing visions of the region’s future. It assesses whether the ongoing transformations reflect a deeper realignment driven by strategic state interests, expanding economic interdependence, and a recalibrated regional order that transcends historical cycles of conflict. Specifically, the analysis considers if these changes primarily illustrate Samuel Huntington’s "Clash of Civilisations" thesis—attributing post-Cold War regional conflicts to cultural and religious identity divisions—or if they instead represent a deliberate and calculated strategic effort to "reshape the Middle East" through redefined state priorities, shifting power dynamics, and newly forged regional and international alliances.

This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential economic, political, and security outcomes should the Arab and Islamic worlds enact a coordinated airspace blockade against Israel. The specified catalyst for this action is the Israeli airstrike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, on September 9, 2025, an event that has already precipitated a significant realignment of regional diplomatic postures.   The central thesis of this analysis is that a coordinated airspace blockade would represent a strategic shock to Israel, not merely a logistical inconvenience. It would function as a form of asymmetric economic warfare, inflicting severe, multi-sector damage on Israel's globally integrated economy by targeting its core vulnerabilities in aviation, high-value trade, and tourism. The direct economic impact is estimated to be a contraction of 4.8% to 5.7% of Israel's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a shock sufficient to trigger a deep recession.   Politically, the blockade would fundamentally re-order the regional geopolitical landscape, shattering the post-2020 status quo established by the Abraham Accords and rendering further normalization efforts untenable. It would accelerate a strategic pivot by Gulf Arab states away from a singular reliance on the United States as a security guarantor, fostering a new, region-driven security architecture. For the United States, such a development would present an acute diplomatic crisis, forcing a choice between its ironclad alliance with Israel and its vital strategic partnerships with Arab nations, thereby undermining a cornerstone of its Middle East policy.   From a security perspective, the blockade would act as a "gray zone" challenge, a highly coercive act that exists in the ambiguous space between peace and declared war. It would degrade the operational reach of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) and place the onus of military escalation squarely on Israel. A decision by Israel to forcibly challenge the blockade would create a high-probability pathway to a wider regional military conflict, potentially drawing in the Gulf states, Iran and its proxies, and the United States. The airspace blockade, therefore, represents a plausible and potent instrument of collective action that could irrevocably alter the strategic balance in the Middle East.

The threat of nuclear weapons, once seemingly receding with the end of the Cold War, has resurged with alarming intensity. A renewed nuclear arms race and a dangerous erosion of the norms and treaties that have, for decades, helped prevent the unthinkable are being witnessed by the world. Since February 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the accompanying rhetoric—including overt and subtly veiled threats to employ nuclear weapons—have broken the post-Cold War taboo. Russia's nuclear weapon posture in Belarus increases tensions even more and normalises the debate about nuclear war. The invasion has had a ripple effect globally, with countries like South Korea, Germany, and Poland expressing renewed interest in nuclear deterrence, either through their own programmes or by hosting US nuclear weapons. Poland's consideration of joining Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey as a host for US nuclear weapons highlights this dangerous trend. Meanwhile, North Korea's continued, unchecked development of its nuclear arsenal and the persistent nuclear belligerence between India and Pakistan serve as concrete examples of the ongoing global threat.   The nuclear shadow over the Middle East has deepened in the aftermath of the October 7 events, which sharply re-escalated regional tensions and exposed the fragility of the existing security order. As Israel’s military operations in Gaza risk broadening into a wider regional confrontation, concerns about the potential use and further proliferation of nuclear weapons have intensified. The director general of the IAEA has recently warned that the intensification of hostilities in the region could acquire “nuclear dimensions,” underscoring the urgent need for full-scope safeguards and renewed diplomatic engagement to prevent further escalation. In this increasingly volatile context, the nuclear issue remains deeply intertwined with broader political and security dynamics, raising the spectre of a dangerous tipping point in regional proliferation. With the renewed conflict between Israel and Iran, talk of nuclear targets and their impact on the region has returned.   Against this backdrop, this paper examines the various forms of nuclear threats and assesses the vulnerability of selected case study countries. These cases—Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Jordan—were chosen based on their susceptibility to nuclear disasters, primarily determined by the presence of nuclear facilities that could be potential sources of risk. Geopolitical significance was also a key factor in the selection process. The threats are grouped into two main categories: the first relates to the dangers posed by nuclear warfare, while the second focuses on risks associated with nuclear or radioactive leaks. Each scenario is further broken down into sub-scenarios that analyse the projected impacts on the selected cases, including estimated fatalities and casualties. The primary criterion guiding case selection and analysis is human loss, with specific cities chosen based on population density, and consequences evaluated accordingly.   By evaluating projected impacts—including human loss and disruption to critical infrastructure—this paper aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of nuclear vulnerability in these key states. In doing so, it highlights how the evolving nuclear landscape in the Middle East region is shaped not only by technological and strategic factors but also by the interplay of domestic ambitions and external pressures. The findings underscore the urgent need for robust safeguards, regional cooperation, and international engagement to mitigate the growing risks posed by nuclear weapons and technology in an increasingly unstable global environment.

In George Orwell's classic 1984, his world was held together by unending war: In the book, messages of hate and reasons to fear were broadcast each day to encourage fearful, slavish masses to rail against an imaginary enemy rather than their actual masters.   US and British geo-strategists have historically been masters of manipulation, redrawing the map of the world to suit Western economic, geopolitical, and military interests, particularly in the MENA region. Their detractors are convinced that their broad goal is Western domination of the area via surrogates and partners such as Israel and Iran (via the back door) to retain control over natural resources and waterways while ensuring those resources do not fall into the hands of competitors such as China and Russia. A school of thought contends that they manufacture sectarian conflicts on the principle of “divide and rule,” creating tensions that justify the installation of military bases and fuel the military-industrial complex through arms sales.   A 2008 paper titled America’s Divide and Rule Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya highlights US efforts to create divisions within Middle Eastern and Central Asian populations through ethno-cultural, religious, sectarian, national, and political differences. According to this perspective, sectarian divides—particularly between Sunni and Shia Muslims—have been deliberately cultivated to weaken regional unity and facilitate geopolitical control.   The Iraq War (2003) and its aftermath further exacerbated these sectarian tensions. The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Ba'athist regime and the empowerment of Shia and Kurdish groups created a power vacuum, fueling sectarian violence. Groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq (later ISIS) thrived under these conditions, exploiting sectarian grievances. The redrawing of Iraq’s internal boundaries, particularly the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government, further solidified ethnic divisions. Toby Dodge, in Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a Road to Peace, argues that the US approach to state-building in Iraq inadvertently deepened these fault lines.   Similarly, US involvement in the Syrian Civil War (2011–2024), through support for various opposition groups, contributed to the country’s fragmentation along ethnic and sectarian lines. The conflict saw the rise of numerous factions, many of which received US backing. The emergence and territorial control of Kurdish-dominated forces in northeastern Syria, supported by the US in the fight against ISIS, created tensions with Arab populations and neighboring Turkey. The conflict has been widely analyzed as having a significant sectarian dimension, with regional powers backing different factions along Sunni-Shia lines.   Middle East expert and author Fred Reed states: “One might be forgiven for surmising that the current thrust of US policy in the Middle East and through the Muslim world is to exacerbate Sunni-Shiite divisions.”   US foreign policy in the region has often been perceived as favoring certain regional powers over others, sometimes along sectarian lines, exacerbating existing tensions. The complex relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia (a Sunni-majority state) and its rivalry with Iran (a Shia-majority state) has frequently been interpreted through this lens, even if US interests are primarily geopolitical. Support for different factions in conflicts like the Yemeni Civil War has similarly been framed within the context of regional sectarian rivalries.   Certain think tanks and policy circles in the US have promoted ideas that emphasize sectarian and ethnic divisions in the Middle East as a way to understand and potentially manage the region. Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan argues that a major US concern in the Middle East is oil. With two-thirds of US oil expected to be imported by 2020, and 65% of the world's remaining oil reserves located in the Middle East, he suggests that a strategy of “divide and conquer” is aimed at keeping strategic control of these resources. Hallinan also highlights the lucrative nature of ongoing Middle Eastern tensions for the US arms industry, citing that countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman have spent over $150 billion on arms purchases.   While the significance of oil in US foreign policy has arguably shifted due to increased domestic production and diversification of energy sources, the Middle East remains strategically important for global energy security. A 2024 report from the Council for a Secure America notes that US oil imports from the Middle East have reached a record low, falling below 11% of total imports. However, this shift does not negate the region’s role in global energy markets.   The US continues to maintain strong relationships with key Gulf oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While policy priorities have expanded beyond securing oil supplies to include counterterrorism, regional stability, and containing rival powers, access to stable energy markets remains a key consideration. Events like the war in Ukraine have further underscored the interconnectedness of global energy markets and the importance of stable Middle Eastern oil production in preventing global price shocks. In fiscal year 2024, US military sales surged, with direct commercial sales rising to $200.8 billion from $157.5 billion in 2023. Government-facilitated arms sales also increased to $117.9 billion. The Middle East remains a significant market for US arms exports, with over $5.5 billion in approved arms sales to Egypt and Morocco alone in December 2024.   The underlying argument of this paper is that beyond the apparent hostilities and rivalries in the region, there exists a covert strategic alliance between Iran, Israel, and the United States. This cooperation manifests in various ways, including indirect coordination in conflict zones, intelligence-sharing, and economic transactions that defy public rhetoric. Despite Iran’s portrayal as a staunch adversary of both the US and Israel, instances of tacit collaboration—such as Iranian oil exports finding their way to markets through indirect channels, US tolerance of Iranian-backed militias in specific contexts, and shared interests in counterbalancing regional actors like Turkey and the Gulf states—suggest a more complex dynamic. This hidden alliance reflects a pragmatic approach to maintaining regional equilibrium, securing strategic interests, and preventing the emergence of truly independent powers that could challenge the existing order.

In today’s volatile political landscape, ceasefires are becoming increasingly relevant. While they are not designed to bring an immediate end to conflicts, they aim to provide a temporary respite in which opposing parties can engage in dialogue and work toward a resolution. Ideally, ceasefires function as transitional phases within ongoing wars, offering the opportunity for negotiation and compromise. However, as a political tool, ceasefires often fail to meet their objectives. Their effectiveness is not simply determined by military action, but by the political will and complex considerations of the parties involved. Ceasefires are heavily influenced by the intentions of the signatories, as not all parties are genuinely committed to ending hostilities. This raises important questions about how we define the success or failure of a ceasefire. If the stated goal is to end the war, yet political agendas remain hidden, the resumption of conflict may not necessarily mean that the ceasefire has failed—it could indicate that one party's objectives were unfulfilled, while the other may have achieved its goals.    Additionally, each ceasefire agreement is unique, shaped by the specific political dynamics at play, including the roles of mediators, guarantees, and the structure of the agreement itself. The Israel-Hamas ceasefire is a striking example of this complexity. While it may appear to be a failure from a broader, collective perspective, it could represent a significant political and military opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The influence of external actors, such as U.S. President Donald Trump, must also be considered as part of the equation. Ultimately, the fragile truce between Hamas and Israel raises a critical question: Is it merely a political process, or does it reflect a deeper, more strategic calculation that extends beyond the immediate cessation of hostilities?

In April 2025, the Trump administration stunned global markets by announcing a sweeping tariff expansion under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), introducing a flat 10% universal tariff on all imports. This move, framed as a national economic emergency response, immediately triggered global trade uncertainty and diplomatic friction. The policy marked a significant escalation of Trump’s protectionist agenda, signalling a break with multilateralism and targeting long-standing trade imbalances with strategic rivals and allies alike. We found that the United States (U.S.) trade structure is deeply imbalanced, with persistent deficits concentrated in sectors essential to industrial production, such as machinery, electronics, and vehicles. These deficits have exposed the U.S. to retaliatory measures from key trade partners—particularly China, Canada, and the EU—who have calibrated their responses to hit politically and economically sensitive export categories. Tariffs have initiated a multi-channel inflationary shock: direct consumer price increases, rising intermediate input costs, and cascading pressures on logistics and wages. The compounded effect has resulted in a net consumer price index (CPI) increase of approximately 1.2%, with higher spikes in key durable goods. Global supply chains are beginning to reconfigure.   The automotive sector, in particular, has seen disruption in bilateral flows with traditional partners, creating openings for new logistical nodes. The UAE stands out as a beneficiary, attracting redirected FDI and becoming a strategic re-export and final assembly hub. Collectively, these findings underscore a paradox: while the policy aims to reduce dependency and correct trade imbalances, it simultaneously accelerates external retaliation, domestic cost pressures, and global fragmentation in trade infrastructure.