Gustavo de Arístegui,
May 4, 2026
I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
Monday, May 4, began under the unmistakable shadow of “Project Freedom ,” the military operation announced by the White House to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz, where, according to the British Royal Navy, nearly 20,000 sailors of various nationalities are trapped. The initiative—which President Trump has presented as a “humanitarian gesture” and which, simultaneously, must be interpreted as a major show of strategic strength—inaugurates a new, more exposed and volatile phase of the confrontation following Operation Epic Fury and the ceasefire declared on April 7.
Meanwhile, the US administration has confirmed the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany, with the additional announcement of “much larger” cuts and specific warnings regarding Italy and Spain. The transatlantic rift, which I have been describing for months as a contained systemic fracture , is now entering a phase of public visibility that no spokesperson can conceal. Ukraine, for its part, is intensifying its strategically deep campaign against Russian refineries and logistics hubs, demonstrating an offensive capability unthinkable two years ago. And the Indo-Pacific front, with the Balikatan 2026 exercises in full swing and the first Japanese presence of combat troops in the Philippines since World War II, warns that the paradox of the Iranian decapitation has not altered the underlying dynamics of the Sino-American competition, but rather accelerated them.
Below I have selected the six news items that, in this analyst’s opinion, most clearly summarize the geopolitical pulse of the last 72 hours.
II. MOST IMPORTANT NEWS OF THE LAST 72 HOURS
1. “Project Freedom”: The United States launches a naval escort operation in the Strait of Hormuz
Facts
President Donald Trump announced on Sunday, May 3, via a post on Truth Social, the imminent start of Operation Freedom , aimed at guiding merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blocked for more than two months. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) specified that the operation will deploy Arleigh Burke destroyers equipped with guided missiles, more than 100 land- and carrier-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and approximately 15,000 personnel. The British Royal Navy estimates that maritime traffic through the strait has fallen by more than 90 percent since the start of the conflict and warns of a looming humanitarian crisis for the trapped sailors. Iranian parliamentarian Ebrahim Azizi, a prominent member of the security establishment in Tehran, has warned that any U.S. interference will be considered a violation of the existing ceasefire.
Implications
The operation marks the first open and announced US military deployment in the waters of the Strait since the declared suspension of hostilities, and it disrupts the delicate diplomatic balance that had sustained the negotiations through the Pakistani intermediary. The dictatorial and mafia-like oligarchy that continues to rule in Tehran—with the Revolutionary Guard triumvirate of Generals Vahidi, Zolghadr, and Rezaei in positions of effective control—faces a classic dilemma: yield and display weakness before its own base, or respond and risk a second phase of the conflict that, this time, could prove fatal. For the Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, the operation is a lifeline: the risk of a widespread declaration of force majeure by Qatar Energy and the major Saudi producers had reached dimensions that no budgetary calculation could absorb.
Perspectives and scenarios
Three possible scenarios:
First, a controlled de-escalation: Tehran “looks the other way,” ships transit, and the negotiation of the fourteen Iranian points —which includes the unfreezing of assets, the lifting of sanctions and a “new mechanism” for the Strait— continues its slow course.
Second, a tactical incident: a ship hit, a drone shot down, a mine discovered. Trump has warned that any interference will be met “forcefully,” a phrase that in his vocabulary rarely allows for gradation.
Third, and more improbable though not impossible , is a complete breakdown of the ceasefire with immediate consequences for Brent crude prices, currently hovering around eighty-two dollars per barrel, which could climb to one hundred or one hundred and fifty dollars within days, according to projections from Goldman Sachs and Barclays. The “decapitation paradox” of the Iranian regime takes on its full dimension here: the decapitated apparatus no longer makes decisions with the centralization of the past, and the response of the middle ranks—conscripts and volunteers of the Revolutionary Guard Corps alike—is the least predictable factor.
2. Trump announces the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany, with explicit threats to Italy and Spain
Facts
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell confirmed on Friday, May 1, that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 US troops from Germany within six to twelve months. President Trump added on Saturday, speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One, that the cuts will go “far beyond” that initial number. The decision, which was not previously communicated to NATO’s Allied Command, according to sources within the Alliance cited by Euronews, comes amid a public dispute between Washington and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who declared that the United States was being “humiliated” by the prolonged Iranian conflict —a statement that, while perhaps considered imprudent and unwise, is unbecoming of a statesman to make publicly. Trump has also stated that he is considering similar cuts in Italy and Spain, specifically mentioning both countries for their “unhelpful response” to the conflict. The Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committees, Senator Roger Wicker and Congressman Mike Rogers, expressed “deep concern” over the decision, warning that it sends “the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”
Implications
This is the first visible structural shift in a realignment of the US military presence in Europe that has been brewing for years. The gesture is, above all, political: Trump is punishing the “public disloyalty” of allies who have refused to join the military effort against Iran and who, in the case of Germany, have added the added burden of open criticism. He said he was disappointed with Meloni and that the Spanish government had been “horrible.”
For Spain, the situation is particularly delicate and, frankly, alarming. The Spanish government’s attitude, bordering on irresponsibility and showing more discomfort with Washington than with Tehran, stands in stark contrast to the operational reality of the Rota and Morón bases, which have functioned and continue to function as active logistical support for Operation Epic Fury. This inconsistency between the government’s public discourse and the military reality of the bases cannot be sustained indefinitely without cost, and that cost is beginning to materialize in the form of an open bill.
Perspectives and scenarios
Germany’s withdrawal, though still limited in its initial numerical scope, opens the door to a broader pullback that will affect forward deployments in Central and Eastern Europe. Senate Republicans are rightly calling for troops not to leave Europe but to be redeployed eastward, where allies like Poland and Romania have already done their homework in terms of investment and access.
For Spain, the realistic scenario is this: if Madrid persists with its current approach, a significant reduction in the US presence in Rota or Morón cannot be ruled out, which would deprive the country not only of a first-rate geopolitical asset but also of a considerable volume of investment and employment. Spanish foreign policy finds itself at a crossroads that does not allow for the usual rhetorical flourishes. And it is worth remembering, once again, that the democratic transition , the greatest achievement of contemporary Spain and of King Juan Carlos I as its architect, placed the country at the center of the Atlantic system precisely because its leaders—the UCD, Felipe González’s PSOE, and the PP—understood that active neutrality toward the adversary is, in the stark language of geopolitics, alignment with the enemy.
3. Ukraine deepens its offensive campaign against Russian energy infrastructure
Facts
Ukrainian Defense Forces conducted a sustained campaign against Russian logistics and energy hubs between May 2nd and 3rd. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) confirmed the attack on the Transneft pumping station in the city of Perm, more than 1,600 kilometers from the border, which the agency itself described as a “strategically important hub of the main oil transport system.” The Ukrainian General Staff reported 141 engagements in the last 24 hours, with particular pressure on the Pokrovsk, Huliaipole, and Kostiantynivka sectors. Ukrainian air defenses neutralized 175 Russian drones and five missiles on May 3rd. Meanwhile, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk denounced the “disintegration” of NATO following the announcement of the US withdrawal from Germany.
Implications
Ukraine exhibits a technological and operational maturity—which the Institute for the Study of War in Washington describes as a sustained increase in scope, volume, and intensity—that is rewriting the terms of the conflict. Kyiv no longer aspires to mere territorial defense: the systematic campaign against Russian refineries, pipelines, and export ports aims to degrade the economic base of Moscow’s war effort. Reuters estimated in March that Russia’s export capacity had been lost by around 40 percent; Zelensky raised the estimate of lost revenue to $2.3 billion per month. This is, to put it bluntly, variable-temperature warfare in its most sophisticated form: the attacker chooses the pace, and the attacked pays the energy bill in each of its markets.
Perspectives and scenarios
Ukraine’s strategically deep campaign will continue to escalate if Kyiv manages to maintain the flow of long-range technologies, some of which are domestically developed—Minister Fedorov has stated that 20 percent of defense resources are allocated to innovation. The main short-term risk is the announced delay by the United States in arms shipments to Europe, according to the Financial Times, which could indirectly affect Ukraine. Putin faces the dilemma of escalating vertically—with the ever-present, ambiguous threat of tactical nuclear weapons—or yielding politically. And yielding, in his logic of personalistic power, amounts to internal defeat. We maintain our unequivocal editorial line: Russian aggression against Ukraine is contrary to the rules-based international order and the fundamental principle that force cannot serve as a legitimate means of territorial acquisition.
4. Negotiations with Iran stalled: Tehran submits fourteen-point proposal through Pakistani mediation
Facts
The Tasnim news agency, linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, reported on Saturday that Tehran, through a Pakistani intermediary, submitted a fourteen-point response to Washington’s previous proposal to the US government. The Iranian offer calls for an “end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon,” the release of frozen assets, the lifting of sanctions, and a “new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz.” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated that the proposal seeks “a permanent end” to the war. Trump responded that he “cannot imagine” the proposal being acceptable, while the Iranian Parliament advances a twelve-point law that would prohibit Israeli ships from transiting Iran and require war reparations from ships of “hostile countries.” The Trump administration has, in parallel, accelerated arms sales to Israel, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, totaling more than eight billion dollars.
Implications
The gap between the two sides remains abysmal. Tehran is playing for time, aware that internal pressure on the US economy—gasoline above four dollars a gallon, according to data from late March verified by ABC News, and resurgent inflation—could alter Washington’s negotiating position. This is the classic tactic of Tehran’s dictatorial and mafia-like oligarchy: to buy time while the terrorist apparatus reorganizes, Hezbollah networks in Lebanon and Syria are reactivated, as are the Houthi terrorists in Yemen, the pro-Iranian terrorist militias in Iraq, and Hamas terrorists in Gaza. The parallel US acceleration of arms sales to Gulf allies is a consistent signal: Washington is preparing so that, should diplomacy fail, its partners will not be caught unprepared.
Perspectives and scenarios
The probability of a negotiating breakdown in the next two or three weeks is, in this analyst’s view, substantially higher than that of an agreement. The Iranian regime needs time—to rebuild capabilities, to consolidate the internal military triumvirate after the removal of Ali Khamenei, to oust the systematically blocked President Pezeshkian—while Trump, on the contrary, needs visible results before the midterm elections. This temporal asymmetry is, in itself, a source of friction. The “decapitation paradox” persists: without a single interlocutor with full authority in Tehran, every Iranian concession can be overruled by the faction that feels excluded from the calculation. The regime remains, it must be remembered, cosmically corrupt , ruthless, and brutal, and any agreement without an articulated plan for the “day after” is, quite simply, disaster management.
5. Indo-Pacific: Balikatan 2026 exercises with unprecedented presence of Japanese troops and Chinese response in the South China Sea
Facts
The Balikatan 2026 combined exercises, underway from April 20 to May 8, bring together some 17,000 personnel from the Philippines, the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and France. For the first time since World War II, Japan has deployed nearly 1,400 combat troops to the Philippines, in accordance with the reciprocal access agreement in effect since last year. The Southern Theater Command of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army announced on April 24 maneuvers by a surface group consisting of Type 055 and 052D destroyers, a Type 054A frigate, and a Type 903A logistics ship east of the Luzon Strait. The aircraft carrier Liaoning transited the Taiwan Strait southward on April 20. Beijing, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has issued airspace restrictions of up to 40 days — well above the usual duration of an exercise — without official justification, and the Chinese fishing fleet has formed organized clusters of more than 200 kilometers in the East Sea.
Implications
China is capitalizing on the polarized US attention focused on Iran to accelerate its strategic positioning in the Pacific’s first island chain. The presence of Japanese combat troops in the Philippines is a historic milestone, symbolically marking the end of a 75-year cycle, which Beijing has denounced in particularly harsh terms, speaking of a “resurgence of militarism.” Chinese expansionism—in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the Pacific toward the Maldives and Sri Lanka, and its growing control of rare earth supply chains—demands vigilance that Europe, preoccupied with its internal debates, remains unable to provide.
Perspectives and scenarios
The 2026-2027 window is critical. The Pentagon has warned that China aims to be in a position to win a war over Taiwan before the end of 2027. The “Taiwanization” of the Indo-Pacific, with the first island buffer zone activated and Tokyo fully committed, raises the opportunity cost of any military adventure by Beijing, but at the same time reduces the margin for error. The planned summit between Xi Jinping and Trump in April, according to analysts at Wellington Management, should produce a provisional agreement, but the long-term strategic decoupling—particularly in emerging technologies, defense, and critical minerals—is already irreversible.
6. Persistent global energy crisis: “Project Freedom” as a decisive variable
Facts
The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, in place since February 28, has caused what the International Energy Agency describes as “the biggest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” Brent crude is hovering around $82 a barrel, with projections from Goldman Sachs and Barclays placing it at $100 to $150 in a prolonged blockade scenario. Gasoline in the United States surpassed $4 a gallon at the end of March. Qatar Energy declared force majeure on its liquefied natural gas contracts. Spirit Airlines ceased operations on May 2, citing fuel costs. War insurance premiums for transit through the Strait have tripled or quadrupled. CENTCOM reports that the U.S. Navy has forced the return of 48 Iranian vessels in the last 20 days as part of the dual blockade of Iranian ports in place since April 13.
Implications
Beyond its military component, “Project Freedom” is the Trump administration’s decisive economic gamble to prevent resurgent inflation from eroding its political capital in the lead-up to the midterm elections. Paradoxically, the United States is partially benefiting from the shock: US exports of crude oil and refined products reached almost 12.9 million barrels per day in April, and Uncle Sam is repositioning itself as an “indispensable supplier,” a phrase aptly captured by Geopolitical Monitor. But importing economies—Asia receives 75 percent of the crude oil and 59 percent of the LNG from the Strait, with China, India, Japan, and South Korea as the main recipients—are suffering a blow that is reshaping strategic alliances in real time. OPEC+ pledged an increase of 206,000 barrels per day to mitigate the deficit, a figure clearly insufficient.
Perspectives and scenarios
If Project Freedom manages to reopen shipping lanes without major incidents in the next two or three weeks, crude oil prices could correct by 10 to 15 percent within days, and the stagflation scenario that some economists have been predicting—with an inevitable echo of the 1970s—will be postponed. If, on the other hand, a significant incident occurs—a ship hit, an escort attacked, a mine detonated—Brent crude could surge to $100 in hours, and in the worst-case scenario, to $150. For Europe, the situation is critical: its dependence and decades-long strategic shortsightedness have been laid bare, and it lacks the leverage to influence the pace of events. The “contained systemic fracture” of the Atlantic order is also painfully evident in this case.
III. MEDIA RACK
The coverage of the last twenty-four hours presents converging lines of argument in the factual and clearly divergent lines in the interpretative, which in itself constitutes a relevant fact.
CNN, CBS News, and NBC have prioritized minute-by-minute coverage of Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing the humanitarian dimension—the 20,000 trapped sailors—and judiciously addressing the military implications. Their coverage has included Isobel Yeung’s (CNN) interview with a stranded captain, an effective narrative device.
The New York Times and The Washington Post maintain an analytical line concerned about the lack of post-conflict planning, picking up critical voices within the Republican Party (Wicker, Rogers) about the withdrawal of troops from Germany.
The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have focused on the macroeconomic implications: oil prices, war insurance premiums, QatarEnergy’s declaration of force majeure, and the announced delay in arms shipments to Europe.
The Times of London and The Telegraph have prioritized the dimension of the dual blockade and the role of the Royal Navy, with editorial coverage favorable to the US operation but critical of the lack of allied coordination.
The Guardian maintains a more skeptical stance regarding “Project Freedom”, emphasizing the risk of escalation and Iranian warnings.
Le Monde, Le Figaro and Libération focus their attention on the transatlantic deterioration, with particular analysis of Friedrich Merz’s German shift —from the initial firm alliance to open criticism— and prudent references to the Spanish position.
FAZ and Die Welt , as expected, offer the most detailed coverage of the Pentagon’s troop withdrawal announcement, adopting a tone of institutional gravity. Die Zeit provides editorial analysis denouncing the lack of prior coordination.
Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica highlight Trump’s explicit mention of Italy among the countries targeted for potential further cuts. L’Osservatore Romano maintains its traditional call for dialogue.
BBC and France Info offer balanced factual coverage with an emphasis on the humanitarian consequences in Lebanon — seventy-three dead and one hundred and sixty-three wounded since April 30, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
Fox News has openly endorsed “Project Freedom” and the withdrawal of troops from Germany as an application of the “America First” principle.
Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Al-Hayat provide extensive coverage of the Iranian dictatorship’s stance and its fourteen-point proposal. Al-Quds Al-Arabi and Al Hayat Al Jadida prioritize the ceasefire in Lebanon and reports of reciprocal violations.
Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel Hayom and Jerusalem Post closely follow US arms sales to Israel, Qatar, the Emirates and Kuwait —more than eight billion dollars— and Israeli actions in southern Lebanon.
Haaretz maintains a more nuanced line, picking up critical voices in the Israeli establishment about the sustainability of the operation.
Asharq Al-Awsat, Arab News and Al Riyadh report Saudi relief at “Project Freedom” and highlight the role of Arab ships without transit options.
The Times of India, Hindustan Times and Indian Express are following with evident geoeconomic interest the Strait crisis —India receives forty percent of its crude oil through Hormuz— and the Balikatan 2026 exercises, in which New Delhi is closely observing the Japanese positioning.
The South China Morning Post and China Daily harshly criticize Tokyo for its “offensive and expansionist stance” and reinforce the narrative of a “new Japanese militarism.” They provide extensive coverage of the PLA’s military exercises in the Luzon Strait.
Yomiuri Shimbun and Tokyo Times underline the historic nature of the deployment of Japanese troops in the Philippines and its place within the revised national security doctrine under Prime Minister Takaichi.
Russia Today, TASS and Vesti maintain their usual propaganda line, calling the Ukrainian attacks on refineries “terrorism” and amplifying the Kremlin’s voice on the “disintegration” of NATO.
Ukrainian Pravda, UKRINFORM, Kyiv Post, and The Kyiv Independent provide detailed coverage of the fighting—141 clashes in the last 24 hours—and the strategically deep campaign against Transneft in Perm. The Kyiv Independent reports Polish Prime Minister Tusk’s condemnation of NATO’s “disintegration.”
Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and The National Interest have published insightful analyses: Geopolitical Monitor has argued that “if the Iranian regime survives, what comes next is not a choice between proxies or nuclear weapons; it is the recognition that nuclear weapons are the only rational security option.” A disturbing read that deserves prolonged attention.
RUSI, IISS, CSIS, and IFRI converge in their analysis of the urgent need for an autonomous European defense architecture. The Economist Intelligence Unit raises its global inflation forecast for the second half of the year.
Politico, Axios, The Hill, and Bloomberg are focusing their coverage on the internal dynamics in Washington, with Republicans on the Armed Services Committee expressing concern, Democrats accusing Hegseth of misleading the public about the progress of the war, and growing friction with Mike Johnson on Capitol Hill.
IV. RISK TRAFFIC LIGHT
🔴 Strait of Hormuz / “Project Freedom”: High to very high risk in the next two weeks. Any tactical incident could trigger a spiral that is difficult to contain. The “decapitation paradox” of the Iranian regime is an aggravating factor here: the response may not be centralized.
🔴 Global energy crisis: high risk. The threat of widespread force majeure in the Gulf and pressure on Brent crude remain at critical levels. OPEC+ does not have sufficient room to compensate for the shortfall.
🟠 NATO cohesion after Germany’s withdrawal and threats to Italy and Spain: medium-high risk. The “contained systemic fracture” becomes visible. Recovery is possible if European allies assume responsibilities in an orderly manner.
🟠 Ukrainian front and strategic depth campaign: medium-high risk. Ukrainian effectiveness is remarkable, but the risk of a vertical Russian response is high.
—including tactical nuclear threats as a means of exerting pressure— persists. The delay in shipments of US weaponry is an aggravating factor.
🟠 Indo-Pacific and Balikatan 2026 exercises: medium risk. The presence of Japanese troops in the Philippines raises the cost of Chinese military adventures in the short term, but also reduces the margin for error. Maximum vigilance over the Taiwan Strait.
🟡 US-Iran negotiations through Pakistani mediation: medium-low risk of progress, but high risk of collapse. The gap between positions remains enormous. The Trump administration needs results before the midterm election cycle; Tehran is playing for time.
🟡 Lebanon (ceasefire of April 16): Medium risk. Seventy-three deaths since April 30. Constant but contained reciprocal violations. The Hezbollah terrorist network remains operational, although weakened.
🟢 Formal institutional Atlantic front: low risk in the short term. Operational coordination mechanisms continue to function despite the political deterioration. The Rota and Morón bases continue to operate normally as active logistical support for Epic Fury.
V. EDITORIAL COMMENTARY
The events of May 4th confirm a thesis I have maintained since the beginning of Operation Epic Fury, and one that deserves, once again, clear formulation: the oligarchic-jihadist regime of Tehran—dictatorial, mafia-like, cosmically corrupt, ruthless, and bestial—can be wounded militarily and decapitated, but it is not defeated until there is an articulated and executable plan for the “day after.” The Trump administration has demonstrated remarkable kinetic capacity and a determination that was beyond the reach of the previous administration; what it has not yet demonstrated is a complete strategic architecture that links tactical success with political transformation. And in geopolitics, tactical successes that are not capitalized on end, with monotonous regularity, become strategic defeats in the long run.
“Project Freedom” is, it must be said clearly, a necessary operation. Twenty thousand trapped sailors represent a humanitarian outrage that no international system worthy of the name can tolerate beyond the weeks that have already passed. Freedom of navigation is, moreover, the foundation upon which the entire global economic architecture has rested since 1945, and abandoning that foundation amounts to accepting a world order dictated by the dictatorial oligarchy of Tehran and its terrorist proxies. The undersigned is therefore decidedly in favor of the operation. But a word of caution is warranted: if Washington does not accompany the force with a coherent geostrategic plan, “Project Freedom” will be a military victory with spectacular media coverage and an extraordinarily limited strategic return.
Regarding the withdrawal of troops from Germany and the threats to Italy and Spain, this analyst must reiterate what he has been writing in La Razón and El Debate over the past few months: the position of the Spanish government, which is dangerously close to irresponsibility and has shown itself to be more hostile to Washington than to Tehran, is simply untenable. The Rota and Morón air bases function as active logistical support for Operation Epic Fury—that is the verifiable military reality—and the government’s public discourse is manifestly inconsistent with this operational reality. This inconsistency has a price that is already being paid, and which will be paid many times over if the course is not corrected. Europe, once again, reveals itself as incapable of taking its own defense, its own security, and its own destiny seriously. The Europe of the 21st century remains, in essence, the strategically myopic Europe that I have been describing in my forthcoming book on the continent’s ten deadly geostrategic sins.
Regarding Ukraine, it is worth reiterating our unequivocal editorial line: Russian aggression is contrary to the fundamental principles of the international order, and the use of force to acquire territory is unacceptable, whether carried out by Moscow, Beijing, or any other actor. The negotiations that the Trump administration is promoting with Russia deserve the critical and demanding scrutiny that these fundamental principles require: peace that rewards aggression is not peace; it is an invitation to the next act of aggression.
On the Indo-Pacific front, the presence of Japanese combat troops in the Philippines for the first time since 1945 is a historic event whose magnitude has not yet been fully grasped. Tokyo is closing one chapter and opening another. Chinese expansionism, as patient as it is systematic, is now encountering coordinated resistance that is disrupting its cost-benefit analysis. But once established, this coordination must be sustained; the allies of the first island chain require strategic certainties that only Washington can offer and which, for the reasons explained regarding Germany, are not entirely clear today.
I conclude with the formulation that best summarizes the current situation. We are clearly in a war of variable intensity , which, in the case of Russia and the Iranian dictatorship, falls squarely into the category of “hybrid warfare.” Success in this type of complex, multifaceted conflict, with its different layers and intensities, is not measured by a single victory but by the ability to maintain course through successive phases of tension.
Western leadership at this juncture requires virtues that the mediocre and short-sighted political class of the 21st century painfully demonstrates a lack of: historical vision, doctrinal clarity and a firm grasp of the values that inspire our democracies, and unwavering resolve in defending our security and interests, coupled with a steadfast determination to implement them. Without these pillars, the international order will continue to erode to the point where restoring it will cost, as is often the case in these matters, an order of magnitude more than it would have cost to preserve it in time.