Escalating Tensions and Technological Advances: The Week in Geopolitics

The geopolitical landscape this week has been a veritable crucible of intensifying international conflicts and technological advancements with far-reaching implications. Iran’s burgeoning nuclear capabilities, Ukraine’s struggle to defend itself from Russian forces, escalating tensions between Israel and regional adversaries, and international responses to these challenges dominated the headlines. This article presents an in-depth analysis of these developments, considering their potential impact on the global balance of power.

Iran Inches Closer to the Bomb: Triggering Regional Anxiety and Nuclear Proliferation

At the heart of this week’s news cycle lies the revelation from U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, that Iran has achieved a nuclear breakout capability of a mere one to two weeks. This assessment, based on recent US intelligence, means that Iran has all the necessary components and knowledge to build a functional nuclear weapon but has refrained from doing so, leaving it in a state of nuclear latency.

What is Nuclear Breakout Capability?

Nuclear breakout capability, also known as nuclear latency, occurs when a nation has achieved all the difficult technological hurdles to develop nuclear weapons — acquiring sufficient quantities of fissile material like enriched uranium or plutonium, procuring the requisite explosive devices, and building the mechanical apparatus for a warhead. Crucially, these nations abstain from the final assembly of the device, recognizing the political and economic ramifications of openly joining the nuclear club.

The Peril of a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Iran’s case evokes serious concern. As a country with a history of flaunting international agreements, its shortened breakout timeline introduces fresh instability to the volatile Middle East, particularly given its long-running rivalry with Israel and ongoing support for militant groups throughout the region. Israel, faced with the risk of an Iranian nuclear attack, could decide to accelerate its own development and potentially even test a weapon.

A Cascade of Nuclear Proliferation?

The implications could spread far beyond Israel. Saudi Arabia, another regional powerhouse eager to contain Iranian power, has previously declared its intention to acquire nuclear weapons should Iran go nuclear. Their acquisition would likely trigger a regional chain reaction: the UAE, a long-time rival of Iran and Saudi Arabia, would seek its own nuclear deterrent; Turkey would pursue its own program, raising the specter of a NATO member with a nuclear arsenal; Greece would have to act, and other regional powers such as Hungary, Azerbaijan, and Armenia could all consider their own place in this highly dangerous arms race. The ramifications of an Iranian bomb could therefore transform the geopolitical map with dire, even apocalyptic results.

Ukraine’s Bridgehead in Kherson Crumbles: Revealing Errors and Costly Losses

Amid international handwringing over Iran’s nuclear brinkmanship, events this past week in the Ukraine War expose its own horrific human cost and the repeated errors in political leadership plaguing both Moscow and Kyiv. A bridgehead established last October on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River near the village of Kherson was overrun in mid-June after nine months of fierce fighting, marking another failure for the much-hyped Ukrainian counter-offensive. Despite this failure, new reporting shows the operation inflicted grave losses on both sides of the conflict, a testament to the brutal nature of a protracted war in which mistakes at the highest level led to the death of over 1,000 Ukrainian troops — highly experienced, valuable soldiers rather than the largely volunteer forces that Russia relies on.

The Daring Gamble to Establish a Bridgehead

The Kherson Bridgehead started after Ukraine’s disappointing summer 2023 offensive. Kyiv, intent on creating a wider buffer zone around the newly liberated city of Kherson to stop the continual bombardment of the region from the Russian-occupied east bank of the Dnipro River, mounted the complex and dangerous operation to cross the gigantic river. Elite marine units spearheaded the effort, initially securing multiple small footholds at a variety of locations along the east bank and taking control of the strategic village of Kherson. Had they succeeded in establishing bridgeheads in all of their intended positions, they might have created a wider staging area and thus an even greater threat to Russian defences.

From Victory to Holding Action

While the Ukrainian advance was ultimately blunted, it had been even more successful than what Russian government pronouncements at the time indicated. A major reporting effort by the Ukrainian investigative outlet Slid in conjunction with several other investigative outlets, think tanks, and experts from around the world, published this week, suggests that the Ukrainians may have sustained enough early gains for them to have seriously contemplated sending a much larger force across the river to bolster the bridgehead and push into the east. In the end, the order never came to send those additional troops — and this may have saved the lives of many soldiers, considering the ordeal faced by the troops who stayed behind to maintain their precarious footholds.

From Holding Action to Political Theatre

The key point behind Kyiv’s decision to stop further advancements and focus on a “holding action” strategy, rather than abandon the bridgehead altogether after it became clear that the initial goals could not be accomplished, remains unclear. Publicly, the authorities argued the necessity of such a policy to tie down Russian forces in a strategically useful position. Yet it was widely understood at the time that, following the stalled summer 2023 offensive, even this explanation strained the capacity for belief among observers in both the West and in Russia. Behind the scenes, however, fears may have motivated a much more transparent intention on the part of the Kyiv government: to portray continued victories and an ongoing “forward momentum” in order to keep international support, and funding in particular, active.

Bloody Results and an Urgent Call for Change

Whatever the true motivations were for the decision to hang on at all costs, and for nine long months, there can be no disputing that this strategy cost a high number of lives. Ukrainian troops who remained on the east bank faced daily attack from overwhelming Russian firepower and air assaults, as resupply across the Dnipro — a waterway so wide that many of the troops stationed on the western bank referred to it as being akin to “a long ocean” — was suicidal. One of the only things the Ukrainian authorities accomplished with the “hold at all costs” strategy was that they inflicted a high cost on Russia as well. Indeed, Russian casualty numbers at the Bridgehead exceeded Ukrainian ones and, perhaps out of embarrassment at these needless losses, Moscow hasn’t even attempted to portray the Bridgehead’s destruction in victory terms.

Israeli City Targeted by Drone Strike from Yemen: Bringing Regional Warfare to a New Level

Even as the Ukraine War and Iran’s shortened nuclear timeline spark new geopolitical fires, another notable incident this week sheds an alarming spotlight on the expanded potential for the world’s conflicts to intertwine into a global mess.

On July 19, at approximately 1 AM, a single Iranian-designed, Houthi-manufactured Samad-3 long-range drone struck an apartment block near Tel Aviv’s waterfront, killing a civilian and injuring a dozen more. Though at the time most believed the attack was likely carried out by Hezbollah forces operating on behalf of Iran, the culprits soon admitted to the act: it was the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who routinely launch kamikaze drones and missiles against international shipping and infrastructure in the Red Sea off of Yemen’s Coast. This attack against Israeli targets, which the Houthis declared to be in “retaliation for Israel’s war against the Palestinians in Gaza,” highlighted their reach, raising concerns over Israel’s capacity for comprehensive defense in the face of numerous enemies at every direction.

Israeli Defence Systems Blindsided

More worrisome, however, are the revelations that Israel’s world-leading air defense systems did not engage the inbound drone in any meaningful way, suggesting potential shortcomings in their capacity to identify threats in complex environments.

In response, Israel has taken several steps on both defense and offense. A statement released by Israeli military officials pointed to human error in operating radar systems and an order was passed to double their staffing. In the meantime, Israel on July 20 sent a wave of retaliatory airstrikes at Houthi military facilities and oil depots in the port city of Hodeidah in Yemen, damaging the facilities and killing six people, with an additional 83 injured, according to that country’s Ministry of Health.

Trudeau’s 2 Percent Gambit: Political Realities and Defense Budgeting in Canada

After resisting calls to meet the NATO commitment to spend two percent of gross domestic product on its armed forces since 2014, last week at the NATO Summit in Washington DC, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally caved. He formally promised that his government would raise defence spending to two percent — by 2032.

For Canadian military hawks, that’s likely too far in the future. The outgoing Chief of the Defense Staff (CDS), General Wayne Eyre, used his latest speech to sound the alarm. He pointed to Canada’s current and dangerous “unpreparedness” in the face of growing threats. The Canadian Army, despite being stationed near the Russian border on NATO’s eastern flank for a potential war against Moscow, lacks not just basic supplies, such as adequate quantities of ammunition and munitions to be useful in an intense conflict for more than a couple days, but also lacks high value, strategic assets such as air defence systems that could protect Canadian forces. The CBC and other local media outlets have sounded the alarm too about Canada’s weak security around its northern territories, at a moment when global warming has opened new shipping lanes and the prospect of a conflict involving China over control of the arctic is an increasingly real danger for America’s military planners.

The Challenge of a Military Culture Built on American Benevolence

Trudeau’s decision likely represents an attempt to get America and European allies off his back. The most influential nations within the alliance have increasingly pushed for other NATO states to pull their weight when it comes to defense. The new Conservative Party leader in Canada, Pierre Poilievre, is, however, less convinced about the importance of meeting NATO’s commitments and sees no point in the Canadian government committing any additional resources to its “bloated” armed forces at a time when taxes are high, the country’s finances are depleted, and there are few if any voters clamouring for higher military spending — and even fewer still who believe Canada needs its own large, battle-ready army at a time when Uncle Sam just happens to be next door and would without any doubt intercede to protect their homeland from Russia or any other nation.

Five Questions to Consider:

1. Could the revelation that Iran may be closer to developing a nuclear weapon prompt military action against the Islamic Republic by regional adversaries like Israel or even more distant states like the United States?
2. Was it strategically wise for the Ukrainian Government to order its military to maintain its bridgehead for nine long months or was the political benefit worth the high human cost?
3. Is there a new military or security reality for Israel if its adversaries such as the Houthi rebels are willing and able to launch lethal strikes against Israel from thousands of miles away or does the success of the July 19 strike by the Samad-3 show an unusual vulnerability that has been addressed by the Israelis?
4. Will a Canadian government ever have the capacity to follow through on Trudeau’s recent promise to increase defence spending to two percent or will Canadian voters continue to reject such policies?
5. Can NATO ever successfully address its current manpower shortages at a moment when it faces significant threats by nations such as Russia, or does Russia’s war in Ukraine show how the era of large-scale European rearmament ended with the fall of the USSR?

The war in Ukraine, now over two years old, continues to be an ugly reminder that conventional thinking rarely makes for successful statecraft in international affairs. When an obvious threat such as Russia’s invasion of a state such as Ukraine came to pass, not only were US, European, and NATO officials caught off guard and flat-footed, but also the nature of the response and the duration of the war are also completely unexpected. With Mr. Putin and the Kremlin holding the advantage of time and having the economic ability to outlast the support of Ukraine’s allies, the time horizon for Ukraine’s allies to recognize that this was not the victory over an obvious and morally unacceptable regime in their backyards as expected but is, instead, a massive and lasting black hole of depleted resources is rapidly coming to pass.