“Either you get rid of your weapons of mass destruction or [the US] will personally destroy them and destroy everything with no discussion.”
Strong words from the US president, directing a clear message to a strategic threat in the Middle East that the advancement of its nuclear program would evoke severe repercussions.
President Donald Trump’s record on arms transfer policy in second term’s first 100 days looks a lot like his approach in his first term — he styles himself as the ultimate dealmaker who can push billions of dollars of US weaponry out the door to the benefit of major weapons contractors and the people who work for them.
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the five Central Asian republics have been performing a very complex balancing act. In some cases, this dynamic has forced them to make difficult decisions from a geopolitical point of view. This is the case with what has happened in recent weeks regarding diplomatic recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the European Union since 2004.
Par des alliances idéologiques, religieuses et stratégiques, l’Iran a développé un réseau de soutien à divers groupes armés en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient pour contrer les Etats Unis et les pays de l’Occident.
President Donald Trump is fond of flexibility. Unperturbed by changing course, he prefers not to be pinned down by past precedent or by his own promises. Although he has pledged to end the war in Ukraine quickly, and although Washington has just signed a deal with Kyiv granting the United States a share of future revenues from Ukraine’s minerals reserves, Trump could decide to walk away from the country entirely if he does not get the peace settlement he craves. A final text of the minerals deal has not yet been made public, but there is no indication that it includes security guarantees for Ukraine. As commander in chief, Trump can minimize U.S. support for Ukraine abruptly and dramatically.
As Sudan plunges into another chapter of fighting, the country is enduring the world’s worst humanitarian crisis at a time of drastically shrinking foreign aid.
Two years of war between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have created a humanitarian disaster. The country is coping with mass displacement, famine, and war crimes against its civilians while its most crucial aid source—the United States—sharply pulls back on assistance. Sudan’s third year of war could be shaping up to be one of its most brutal.
The United States and China have one of the world’s most important and complex bilateral relationships. Since 1949, the countries have experienced periods of both tension and cooperation over issues including trade, climate change, and Taiwan.
Waging war across multiple fronts has historically been a strategic nightmare for states and military leaders alike. From ancient empires to modern superpowers, the challenges of divided attention, stretched resources, and fragmented strategies have often led to devastating outcomes. Academic theories in international relations, military strategy, and political science help explain why fighting on multiple fronts remains one of the greatest risks in warfare.
On 18 April, the Pentagon confirmed a significant reduction in US troop levels in Syria, marking a new phase in America’s military involvement in the country.
This move follows a brief surge in deployments during 2024 when the number of US personnel in Syria rose to 2,000 after roughly 900 in 2019. Now it’s being reduced back down to what Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell described as a “conditions-based” presence of fewer than 1,000 troops.
Jordan’s government banned the Muslim Brotherhood in late April after the Interior Ministry announced the arrest of 16 group members who were allegedly planning rocket and drone attacks.
The Brotherhood denied any involvement in the incident and, in a statement, distanced itself from those arrested, who claimed their efforts were solely aimed at aiding Gaza.