From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye
Today’s about: Belarus-Russia-Europe; Europe-US-NATO; Iraq; Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin-Sahel; US; US-Japan; US-Russia; US Tariffs
Belarus – Russia – Europe
(Artyom Shraibman – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) The prospect of an open-ended military standoff between Russia and Europe raises the likelihood that Moscow might use Belarus to stage increasingly dangerous provocations. European governments should think proactively about how to create the right mix of incentives and pressure to ensure that Belarusian leaders think twice before allowing themselves to be sucked into any future military confrontation. – Not So Quiet on the Eastern Front: Elements of a Risk Management Strategy Toward Belarus | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Europe – US – NATO
(Frederick Kempe – Atlantic Council) Ukraine’s audacious attack on Russian strategic bombers this past weekend, damaging more than a third of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s capabilities, provided an encouraging glimpse into what should be the future of European and transatlantic defense. Imagine a world in which Ukraine, working alongside European and North American partners, so convincingly wields advanced technological and defense capabilities that Putin stops his murderous war and agrees to a sustainable peace. That also would send an unmistakable message of transatlantic common cause to Russia’s partners: China, North Korea, and Iran. However, that outcome can only be achieved if the European Union (EU), after decades of neglect, turns Ukrainian inspiration and a flood of new defense spending announcements into real capabilities and technological innovation. It will also require that the Trump administration unambiguously back its European allies at the June 24-25 NATO Summit in The Hague as the Alliance makes new spending and defense production commitments. – Ukraine just gave us a glimpse into the future of European defense – Atlantic Council
Iraq
(Emirates Policy Center) The proposed law by the Iraqi government regarding the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) reflects growing concerns by Iran’s proxies in Iraq about Tehran’s diminishing regional influence. The proposed law represents an attempt to reposition Shia militias within Iraq by integrating them into a new legal and institutional framework. The proposed PMF law seeks to formalize and legitimize PMF’s military, security and administrative structure, which is controlled by the Iraqi Resistance Coordination Committee (IRCC), an umbrella organization comprising the most powerful pro-Iran militias. The introduction of this law at this sensitive time – given Iraq’s domestic situation and regional and international turmoil – is a risky move. It appears to challenge the stance of US President Donald Trump’s administration, which had called for dismantling the PMF’s forces and integrating them into security forces. There are two likely paths for the PMF law. The first is a full retraction followed by negotiations. The second, and most probable scenario, is to make some cosmetic revisions before resubmitting the draft to Parliament for approval. Transforming the PMF from a temporary force facing opposition even among Shia circles into a permanent institution embedded with the state and controlling key government institutions poses significant risks to Iraq’s Arab neighbors. These challenges call for a unified Arab response to the institutionalization of the PMF. – Emirates Policy Center | Risky Maneuvers: Iraq’s PMF Law Between Internal Disputes and External Pressures
Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin – Sahel
(Soufan Center) Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) has increased its operational tempo in northern and central Mali, conducting a series of complex attacks on military installations in Timbuktu and Boulkessi – and in the process, further exposing the limitations of junta-led security forces. JNIM’s recent assaults, including its seizure of population centers and its propaganda output, constitute a broader strategy to degrade public confidence in state forces, boost recruitment, and expand operations into littoral West Africa. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger’s withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has undermined regional coordination and facilitated expanded influence of countries like Iran and Russia in the Sahel – developments that ultimately subvert efforts to counter jihadist offensives. State-sanctioned ethnic violence – especially targeting Fulani and Tuareg communities – has exacerbated grievances and played into jihadist narratives, driving JNIM’s expansion. – JNIM Expanding Geographic Reach and Staging Coordinated Attacks in the Sahel – The Soufan Center
US
(Elias Yousif – Stimson Center) Amidst an unprecedented disruption of governing norms, President Trump’s recent decision to break with longstanding practice to bypass congressional holds on arms transfers to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) may seem like a relatively minor act of defiance. From the dismissal of inspector generals, to the shuttering of independent agencies, to the liberal use of wartime authorities to sidestep legal constraints, the White House is engaging in an extraordinary effort to emancipate itself of the oversight mechanisms that underpin the balance of power between the co-equal branches of government. However, given the already beleaguered state of the security cooperation oversight ecosystem, the disregard of the “tiered review process” for U.S. arms transfers represents a serious blow to a critical guardrail for a profoundly consequential aspect of U.S. foreign policy. – Eroding What’s Left of Congressional Arms Transfer Oversight • Stimson Center
US – Japan
(Yuki Tatsumi – Stimson Center) President Donald Trump surprised Japan when he announced that he gave a green light to the “partnership” between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on May 23. When asked by the media on May 25, Trump emphasized that the transaction he had given a tentative green light to was a “partnership” that would include heavy investment by Nippon Steel in U.S. Steel and therefore contribute to revitalizing the U.S. steel industry. – Trump’s Green Light: Can Tokyo Replicate Nippon Steel Deal? • Stimson Center
US – Russia
(Stephen Sestanovich – Council on Foreign Relations) Members of Congress have launched a potentially significant effort to toughen U.S. strategy toward Russia’s war in Ukraine. On April 1, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 (SRA2025), which calls for—in Graham’s words—“bone-crushing” sanctions to cripple the Russian “war machine.” Supporters of the bill, which now has over eighty cosponsors, have portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as an untrustworthy negotiating partner, someone who lies to U.S. officials (and to President Donald Trump) so as to dodge new sanctions and keep his brutal war going. “That guy,” Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) has declared, “is stringing President Trump along.” Adds Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), “Nobody likes to see somebody try to play the president.” – The Senate’s New Ukraine Bill Will Not Work—But Here Is How to Fix It | Council on Foreign Relations
US Tariffs
(Shannon K. O’Neil, Julia Huesa – Council on Foreign Relations) President Donald Trump doubled U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all U.S. trade partners to 50 percent on June 4. The only country that will remain at 25 percent is the United Kingdom, though that depends on the outcome of the trade deal the country negotiated with the United States last month. The White House cast the tariffs as a crackdown on subsidized metals coming out of China that flooded global markets and—the administration argues—put U.S. producers out of business. Imposed under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, these levies rest on firmer legal ground than the broader April 2 tariffs, whose basis in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is now being questioned in U.S. courts. The consequences for the broader U.S. economy will be limited. Bloomberg Economics predicts they will shrink GDP by just 0.15% and boost U.S. consumer prices by 0.1% over the next three years. Still, steel using industries will face higher prices, lower margins if costs can’t be fully passed through to consumers, and potentially lost jobs. Here are six graphics that show the potential economic effects of these steel and aluminum tariffs on the United States and the world. – Trump’s New Aluminum and Steel Tariffs Explained in Six Charts | Council on Foreign Relations
