The Western Pacific remains a highly active theater defined by sustained U.S.-led military exercises and escalating great power competition. Key evidence includes continuous joint operations, such as RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii and the deployment of CSGs into the South China Sea, juxtaposed with increased naval activity from both China (PLAN task groups) and Russia near Japan's critical straits. These movements underscore a strategic push by non-allied powers to assert presence and challenge regional norms. Policy implications dictate that allied nations must maintain robust multilateral cooperation and interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation and manage escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
Syria and the Levant
English Summary
Chatham House argues that Assad’s abrupt fall in December 2024 revealed Syria’s state fragility, the limited capacity of Iran and Russia to sustain him, and the strategic failure of past Western policy. It reasons that Syria’s transition will be shaped by neighboring states—especially Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon—which see both security risks and geopolitical openings as a new government seeks reconstruction support. The analysis highlights Lebanon’s governance stress from Hezbollah’s weakening after conflict with Israel, and Jordan’s added vulnerability as U.S. policy under President Donald Trump may intensify West Bank dynamics. Policy strategy should therefore prioritize a genuinely Syrian-led political transition, disciplined regional burden-sharing, and early safeguards against spillover instability in Lebanon and Jordan while avoiding prior external policy mistakes.
中文摘要
研究所指出，阿塞德政權於2024年12月的突然垮台，暴露出敘利亞國家體制的脆弱性、伊朗與俄羅斯維持其統治能力的有限性，以及過去西方政策的戰略失敗。該文認為，敘利亞的轉型將由周邊國家塑造，尤其是土耳其、約旦、以色列與黎巴嫩；在新政府尋求重建支持之際，這些國家同時看到安全風險與地緣政治機會。分析強調，黎巴嫩在真主黨與以色列衝突後勢力走弱，致使其治理壓力加劇；同時，隨著美國總統唐納·川普政府的政策可能加劇西岸局勢，約旦的脆弱性也進一步上升。因此，政策策略應優先推動真正由敘利亞主導的政治轉型、推進有紀律的區域責任分擔，並及早建立防範機制，以遏止不穩定外溢至黎巴嫩與約旦，同時避免重蹈過去外部政策的覆轍。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
-
3.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
4.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.