From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye
Today’s about: Iraq; Israel; Poland-Russia; Russia; Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond); US
Iraq
(Soufan Center) The security calculations of the Shia Muslim-dominated government in Baghdad were upended by the collapse of the Assad regime in neighboring Syria, which brought Sunni Muslim Islamists to power on Iraq’s western border. The Türkiye-backed political change in Syria leaves Iran as Iraq’s main remaining regional ally. Iraqi Shia leaders are concerned that a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq, agreed before Assad’s collapse and planned for September, will render the country vulnerable to Sunni militants. Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on the new Syrian government did not alter the U.S. sanctions architecture on Iraq, including Treasury Department restrictions intended to prevent the flow of U.S. dollars into Iran. – Iraq Is Buffeted by Regional Crosscurrents – The Soufan Center
Israel
(Atlantic Council) Can the ultimate political survivor stay afloat? At home, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces the challenge of keeping a fragile coalition together amid growing societal divisions over the war in Gaza and reemerging political fault lines that had receded following October 7, 2023. Abroad, the Netanyahu government confronts escalating international criticism for its conduct of the war in Gaza and recent public disagreements with Washington over Middle East policy. Meanwhile, Israeli media reported Thursday that Netanyahu is willing to accept the latest US cease-fire offer. To illuminate what this all means, we reached out to Shalom Lipner, a former adviser to seven consecutive Israeli prime ministers, including Netanyahu, to get a sense of how the Israeli political landscape has shifted after more than six hundred days of war. – Five questions (and expert answers) on the state of the Netanyahu government – Atlantic Council
Poland – Russia
(Alexander Neuman – The Jamestown Foundation) Poland announced on May 12 that it will close Russia’s consulate in Krakow after attributing the May 2024 Warsaw shopping center fire to Russian security services, as one of only seven North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries to shut down Russian consulates. Moscow and its proxies continue staging covert operations in Poland, with at least two apparent abductions in recent months, despite Poland’s extensive diplomatic and civilian restrictions on Russia and Belarus. Russian hybrid warfare increasingly utilizes local criminals in influence operations designed to tarnish the Ukrainian image in the West, even when physical outcomes are limited. – Poland Responds to Russian Sabotage Campaign with Consulate Closure – Jamestown
Russia
(Richard Arnold – The Jamestown Foundation) The Russian government is significantly boosting the visibility and funding of the Cossacks, as seen in budget increases, high-profile national gatherings, and cultural exhibitions linking them to the Soviet victory in World War II. The All-Russian Cossack Society has increased its media activity, reflecting a broader geographic scope and growing militarized initiatives such as youth training, Orthodox blessings, and deployment stories from a range of Russian regions. Victory Day 2025 marked intensified Kremlin efforts to unify registered and ethnic Cossack factions, aligning their historical narratives with current nationalistic goals and embedding them more deeply in Russia’s militarized civic culture. – Cossacks Continue to be Rising Star in Kremlin Plans – Jamestown
Russia’s War of Aggression on Ukraine (and beyond)
(Paul Globe – The Jamestown Foundation) The degradation of the Russian army in Ukraine has made it a crucible for the growth of criminal attitudes and extremist beliefs that will threaten Russian society and government as veterans return home. When as many as 700,000 veterans do eventually return home—100,000 more than the number of those who came back from Moscow’s war in Afghanistan—they are likely to generate an upsurge in violence that will pose a serious challenge to the Putin regime. The longer Russia’s war against Ukraine continues and the more the Russian army degrades, the greater challenge soldiers and veterans will pose, both on the battlefield in Ukraine and politically inside Russia. – Russian Army’s Degradation in Ukraine Makes Returning Veterans Even Greater Threat – Jamestown
(Yasir Atalan and Benjamin Jensen – Center for Strategic & International Studies) Russia recently conducted its largest air attack on Ukraine, targeting Kyiv and other regions in the country and killing over 15 people and injuring dozens. The attacks, which occurred over the weekend of May 25 during stalled negotiations, were an order of magnitude higher and more deadly than previous salvos. Russia launched a record number of Shahed drones, with 355 deployed on May 25 alone. Alongside these low-cost, long-range loitering munitions, there was a significant increase in the number of Iskander ballistic missiles fired at Ukraine. Typically averaging 1–2 launches per week, 23 were reportedly fired over just two days, accompanied by more than 60 reported air-launched cruise missiles, including models like the X-101 and X-555. In total, approximately 1,000 drones and missiles were launched during this roughly three-day period, demonstrating the use of air and missile power to coerce Ukraine. – Russia Conducts Largest Air Attack on Ukraine to Date
(Brian Whitmore – Atlantic Council) This war will be decided on the battlefield. Four months of chaotic shuttle diplomacy aimed at reaching a cease-fire in Ukraine, multiple phone calls between US President Donald Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin, repeated US attempts to pressure, browbeat, and bully Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into concessions, have all yielded exactly nothing. Which is not in the least bit surprising. Because there is no deal to be had with Russia on Ukraine. There never has been, and there never will be. – Welcome to the long war: Why a Ukraine deal was never realistic – Atlantic Council
US
(Ilaria Mazzocco – Center for Strategic & International Studies) As the Senate considers the One Big Beautiful Bill Act recently passed by the House, Congress faces critical choices that could reshape the future of U.S. industry—especially in relation to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and more generally, strategic decisions over how to best promote U.S. competitiveness in advanced technologies. For the automotive sector, the stakes are high: The 30D consumer tax credits and the 45X advanced manufacturing production credits are at risk of being canceled or significantly curtailed. This comes at a time when the Trump administration is also seeking to reduce fuel-economy standards, and Congress has overturned a waiver that allows California to set its own standards for emissions, effectively striking down the state’s ban on the sale of non-electric vehicles (EVs) past 2035. Charging infrastructure also remains woefully inadequate, but the current administration has paused new funding to expand it. The combined effect would be a 180-degree policy change for an industry that requires years of planning, and the removal of the consumer tax credits would largely nullify incentives to localize manufacturing and diversify supply chains. Large investments from industry were planned in batteries, automotive manufacturing, and critical mineral mining and refining, with the assumption of long-term policy stability, an assumption that is now in doubt. Perhaps even more concerning, the current approach to the automotive sector risks holding back U.S. innovation. – What’s Missing from the U.S. Debate on Electric Vehicles
(Philip Luck – Center for Strategic & International Studies) In an unexpected (..) decision with sweeping implications for U.S. trade policy, the Court of International Trade (CIT) unanimously struck down President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling them unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision—delivered by a panel of judges appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump—has already halted the implementation of several key tariff measures and cast fresh uncertainty over the future of U.S. economic statecraft. These critical questions break down what the court ruled, how this decision affects the broader Trump trade agenda, what it means for markets, and where things are headed next. – What the Court’s Ruling on Trump’s Tariffs Means for U.S. Trade Policy and the Economy
(Inu Manak – Council on Foreign Relations) In a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled on Wednesday that the sweeping tariffs imposed by his administration are illegal. The decision by the New York-based court follows a series of lawsuits that argued that Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs exceed his presidential authority. – Trump’s Tariffs Aren’t Over, But They Face a Major Challenge | Council on Foreign Relations
(Sarah Bauerle Danzman – Atlantic Council) Last week, US President Donald Trump announced that a deal had been reached approving a “planned partnership” between Nippon Steel and US Steel. This news seemed to settle an almost eighteen-month saga during which Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of US Steel was unexpectedly and controversially embroiled in a national-security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). In one of his last acts as president, US President Joe Biden had prohibited the transaction before punting the decision to the next administration. – Does the Nippon Steel deal reflect a new normal for foreign investment in the US? – Atlantic Council
(Atlantic Council) It depends on your definition of “emergency.” Donald Trump, in his self-declared “liberation day” on April 2, didn’t just impose tariffs on virtually the entire world. He did it by using a novel legal theory and expanding the use of decades-old legislation called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in a way no US president had done before. Now, with those tariffs on pause but set to come into effect in early July, a federal court ruled Wednesday that Trump’s use of that law was unconstitutional. Is this the end of the trade wars? Not at all, according to our experts. – Will Trump’s tariffs survive US courts? – Atlantic Council
