The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
Any Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon will work to Hezbollah’s advantage
English Summary
Prolonged Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon threatens to backfire strategically by strengthening Hezbollah rather than weakening it. The analysis argues that military presence will further destabilize Lebanon's fragile state institutions, which are already struggling to provide services and establish legitimacy after recent conflicts. While Hezbollah suffered significant losses following Israel's decapitation of its leadership in September 2024, continued Israeli military operations create conditions for the group to reconstitute as a dispersed guerrilla force and rebuild popular support, particularly among Lebanese Shia communities. The report recommends prioritizing international support to strengthen Lebanese state capacity and provide essential services, coupled with diplomatic efforts to address external Iranian support for Hezbollah, rather than relying on military occupation to achieve disarmament.
中文摘要
長期的以色列占領黎巴嫩南部面臨戰略反效果的風險，可能強化而非削弱真主黨。該分析指出，軍事駐紮將進一步破壞黎巴嫩本已脆弱的國家機構，這些機構在近期衝突後已在提供服務和建立合法性上力不從心。儘管真主黨在2024年9月遭遇以色列針對其領導層的斬首行動而遭受重大損失，但以色列持續的軍事行動為該組織以分散的遊擊隊形式重組，並在黎巴嫩什葉派社區重建民眾支持創造了條件。報告建議優先加強國際支持以提升黎巴嫩國家能力與基本服務，同時透過外交途徑解決伊朗對真主黨的外部支持問題，而不應依賴軍事占領來實現武裝解除。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
3.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
4.
The article analyzes Finland's agreement to coordinate its conventional forces with French nuclear capabilities, clarifying that no nuclear weapons will be stationed in Finland. The author argues that increased communication between nuclear powers, rather than the deployment of weapons, is beneficial for reducing the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation, particularly near Russia. For Europe, the policy recommendation is a responsible middle course: strengthening non-nuclear military capabilities to deter Russia while simultaneously negotiating a stable system, such as non-aligned buffer states. This approach is presented as a diplomatic alternative to both aggressive military action and surrender.
-
5.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.