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.
Subsea Data Centers: An Opportunity for the State of Israel
English Summary
The INSS argues that subsea data centers could become a strategic infrastructure option for Israel by addressing AI-era pressures on electricity, freshwater, and land while strengthening digital sovereignty. It cites evidence from Microsoft’s Project Natick and Chinese deployments showing major gains in cooling efficiency, reduced freshwater use, lower land footprint, and improved hardware reliability in sealed underwater environments. The paper also stresses that these benefits are offset by unresolved environmental effects, difficult maintenance logistics, heightened sabotage/espionage risks to subsea assets, and legal-regulatory gaps under current maritime law. Strategically, it recommends that Israel proactively assess pilot adoption, integrate planning with existing offshore energy/communications infrastructure, and develop dedicated regulation, environmental monitoring, and maritime protection doctrines in coordination with regional partners.
中文摘要
INSS 主張，海底資料中心可望成為以色列的戰略性基礎設施選項：在 AI 時代可緩解電力、淡水與土地資源壓力，並強化數位主權。報告援引微軟 Project Natick 與中國部署案例，指出在密封式水下環境中可大幅提升冷卻效率、降低淡水消耗與土地占用，並改善硬體可靠性。惟該文亦強調，上述效益仍受多項未解風險抵銷，包括潛在環境影響尚未明確、維護後勤困難、海底資產遭破壞與間諜活動風險升高，以及現行海洋法下法律與監管框架不足。就戰略層面，報告建議以色列應前瞻性評估試點導入，並與既有離岸能源與通訊基礎設施整合規劃，同時在與區域夥伴協調下，建立專門監管制度、環境監測機制與海上防護準則。
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.