NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI Global: Grover Norquist’s lasting influence on the GOP and US economic policy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gibbs Knotts, Professor of Political Science, Coastal Carolina University

    Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, speaks on Capitol Hill on Nov. 7, 2017. Alex Wong/Getty Images

    In the “one, big, beautiful bill,” President Donald Trump has called for substantial decreases in federal domestic spending. However, a schism emerged between Republican lawmakers during the budget debates in Congress.

    Some Republicans in blue states called for a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans, prompting longtime anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist to call the increase an “incredibly destructive idea economically, and very foolish politically.”

    As he has done since the 1980s, Norquist demonstrated his influence over the GOP. Since Trump’s second inauguration, he has appeared in several high-profile news stories about the budget, including a Washington Post article where he said, “Tax cuts are income to Americans and a loss to the bureaucracy.”

    Ultimately, the tax increase was defeated, and the Trump budget proposal passed the House on May 22, 2025.

    Norquist praised the leadership from Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, saying taxpayers owe them “bigly for managing a narrow Republican House Majority that was united and committed to reducing taxes on the American people.”

    As scholars of U.S. politics, we examined Norquist’s emergence, traced debates about the scope and size of the American government and assessed Norquist’s relevance in the Donald Trump era, where he continues to wield considerable sway in the Republican Party.

    The conscience of a conservative

    In 1960, a slim, 123-page book changed the trajectory of American conservative thought.

    “The Conscience of a Conservative,” written by Barry Goldwater, laid out the premise that an expansive federal bureaucracy was the root evil of government.

    Four years later, Ronald Reagan launched his political career with a speech supporting Goldwater. His words echoed Goldwater: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size … a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

    Reagan ended the speech by noting, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.” Goldwater wouldn’t manifest that destiny, but Reagan, 16 years later, took this vision of fiscal conservatism to the White House.

    By the 1980s, Goldwater’s limited government creed had become part of Republican dogma. Government wasn’t just bloated, according to Reagan. It was, as he noted, the problem. The Reagan presidency ushered in the doctrine of supply-side economics, which rests on the premise that tax cuts are key to stimulating economic growth.

    Norquist’s emergence

    Into this landscape stepped a young Norquist.

    He had cut his teeth at the National Taxpayer’s Union, a fiscally conservative taxpayer advocacy group. Then, in 1981, he became the executive director of the College Republican National Committee.

    In the first issue of CR Report, a college Republican newsletter, Norquist’s position as executive director was announced, and he provided a list of suggested readings. Among the titles he recommended were Goldwater’s “Conscience,” Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” and Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.”

    In 1985, Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform to support his tax reduction efforts. As Norquist noted, “The tax issue is one thing everyone agrees on.”

    He and his organization effectively institutionalized a permanent tax revolt in Congress supported by his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” a promise made starting in 1986 to oppose all efforts to increase marginal tax rates or reduce deductions or credits.

    The pledge became a litmus test for fiscally conservative GOP candidates and cemented the party’s anti-tax stance.

    Feeling this pressure, GOP nominee George H.W. Bush delivered his famous line, “read my lips, no new taxes,” at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Those six words were repeatedly used by primary challenger Pat Buchanan and Bush’s opponent in the general election, Bill Clinton, to raise questions about Bush’s honesty – since he made a pledge that he was unable to keep.

    Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House of Representatives, holds up a copy of the ‘Contract With America’ during a speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in April 1995.
    Richard Ellis/AFP via Getty Images

    With Clinton in the White House in 1994, Norquist helped House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich write the “Contract with America” to legislate fiscal conservatism. Weaponizing government shutdowns and setting a more confrontational tone, congressional Republicans successfully rolled back welfare programs, reduced the size of government and cut taxes.

    In 1995, they came two votes shy in the Senate of approving an amendment to the Constitution that would have required the federal budget to be balanced – with no borrowing – every year.

    Anti-tax conservatism in the 21st century

    In 2001, Norquist told a reporter at The Nation: “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

    This objective would have to wait during the George W. Bush presidency. Resulting in part from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration saw dramatic expansions of federal power and spending in homeland security, defense and Medicare, as well as a large increase in the budget deficit.

    The tea party movement, a fiscally conservative political group, was formed in response to these Bush-era increases and two signature programs of the Barack Obama administration: the massive stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and his signature health care reform, the Affordable Care Act.

    Norquist reveled in renewed attention to tax policies and the size of government, urging readers of The Guardian to “join the Tea Party movement.”

    Norquist’s continuing legacy

    For more than four decades, Norquist has been a relentless advocate for fiscal conservatism. He is the living embodiment of an ideological thread that stretches from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich to current GOP leadership.

    Grover Norquist waits for the arrival of President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House on March 21, 2019.
    AP Photo/Evan Vucci

    The ongoing debates about the Trump budget are just the latest example of Norquist’s influence. He continues to play an active role in debates about the federal budget and still has considerable sway with Republicans.

    However, Norquist’s uncompromising stance on taxes has coincided with increases in federal spending, surging budget deficits and increased national debt.

    That additional debt is accumulating because many Republicans have adopted his anti-tax position while simultaneously increasing defense budgets, maintaining or expanding entitlement spending and lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

    Nevertheless, Norquist continues to be the fiscal conscience of the Republican Party. Politicians come and go. Powerful ideas, and those who champion them, endure.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Grover Norquist’s lasting influence on the GOP and US economic policy – https://theconversation.com/grover-norquists-lasting-influence-on-the-gop-and-us-economic-policy-256978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gregory F. Treverton, Professor of Practice in International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    Iranians protest the U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Tehran on June 22, 2025. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    The Trump administration’s decision to bomb Iran dramatically marks the now nearly half-century of hostility between the United States and Iran, which began in 1979 with Iran’s takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 diplomatic hostages.

    It remains uncertain whether the Iran-Israel ceasefire will hold, given President Donald Trump’s seemingly impulsive policy decisions and an Israeli leader who critics say pursues war to stay in power.

    Additional unpredictability can be seen in a weakened Iran government that is unpopular with its own people but must also bet that standing up to the U.S. and Israel will induce its people to rally around the flag, even if they don’t like who holds that flag.

    As a U.S. international relations scholar, I think whatever comes next will be well informed by what has already happened in U.S.-Iran history. That includes an offer from Trump – who considers himself the consummate negotiator – to Iran to return to the negotiating table.

    The shah’s last visit to Washington

    The opening bracket in modern U.S.-Iran relations was the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,“ whom a CIA covert action had restored to leadership a quarter-century earlier.

    As a young National Security Council staffer, I stood on the South Lawn of the White House as the shah’s helicopter landed in 1977 for a state visit to his close ally, the United States.

    The episode was perhaps a metaphor for the two countries’ relationship. I stood next to a colleague who had written for President Jimmy Carter remarks that included fulsome praise of the shah, but his crack to me was: “You’ll recognize the shah. He’s the one with blood under his fingernails.” Beneath a formal alliance, there was a good deal of cynicism on the U.S. part about the shah’s repressive regime and use of secret police to suppress opposition.

    Pro- and anti-shah protesters were demonstrating at the bottom of the Ellipse, the park south of the White House grounds. The U.S. Park Police, understandably but unwisely, sought to separate them with tear gas, which then wafted over the proceedings on the South Lawn.

    The Shah of Iran wipes tear gas from his eyes as President Jimmy Carter speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on Nov. 15, 1977.
    AP Photo

    The impact of the hostage crisis

    It’s impossible to overstate the effect of the 1979 hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 62 American hostages for 444 days.

    The Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords, which led to the release of the hostages in January 1981. There have been persistent accounts, none ever fully validated, that the incoming Reagan administration dealt with Iran to delay the release until after the new president’s inauguration.

    The crisis not only cost Carter his job, but it also cast an enduring shadow over the U.S.-Iran relationship, compounding Americans’ difficulty in understanding a regime that was not only theocratic but Muslim.

    The 1980s witnessed a whipsaw of relations.

    From 1980 to 1988, as Iran and Iraq fought a bloody war to a stalemate, the U.S. saw the power of both countries contained, but it did provide intelligence and logistical support to Iraq.

    Then came the Iran-Contra Affair of 1985 to 1987. It was the Reagan administration’s most serious scandal, in which White House officials illegally sold sanctioned arms to Iran and secretly diverted the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras. In a moment straight out of comic opera, National Security Council aides brought a goodwill chocolate cake to Tehran during a secret diplomatic mission in May 1986.

    Unidentified U.S. hostages arrive on Jan. 21, 1981, at Rhein-Main U.S. Air Force base in Frankfurt, West Germany, one day after their release from Iran.
    AP Photo

    In 1988, a U.S. ship struck an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. retaliated by destroying oil platforms and damaging Iranian ships in “Operation Praying Mantis,” and tragically – and mistakenly – shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians.

    The 1990s and 2000s again displayed the limits of the relationship.

    In 1995, President Bill Clinton imposed an oil and trade embargo against Iran, and Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act in 1996, which imposed economic sanctions on companies doing business with Iran and Libya.

    In 1998, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for a “dialogue of civilizations,” prompting cautious U.S. signals of engagement.

    Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “axis of evil,” a sharp rhetorical escalation. For its part, Iran alleged U.S. drone incursions and covert operations. Limited diplomatic back channels emerged, but to no outcome.

    In 2009, President Barack Obama reached out to Tehran amid post-election unrest in Iran, but two years later Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for oil shipments to the West.

    In 2015, the two countries were party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran agreeing to limit its nuclear program under international oversight.

    Two years later, though, President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed sweeping sanctions in a “maximum pressure” campaign.

    In 2019 and 2020, a series of tit-for-tat escalations culminated in the Jan. 3, 2020, U.S. drone strike that assassinated senior Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region.

    U.S. sanctions continued in the Biden administration as Iran pursued deeper ties with Russia, China and nonstate proxies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

    What lessons?

    What can be learned from this tangled history?

    First, that negotiations are possible between the two countries, but they are neither easy nor likely to produce more than limited outcomes. Indeed, high-level indirect talks mediated by Oman began in April 2025, though they were in suspension when the U.S. bombers struck.

    Second, despite the Iran regime’s unpopularity, regime change in Iran is unlikely. Assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khameini would likely abet the “rally ‘round the flag” effect, as did the assassination of Soleimani.

    Third, Iran has been careful in its responses even to Israeli aggression but especially in engaging the U.S. in military conflict, a caution the American B-2 bombings on June 21 can only underscore.

    Iran had to retaliate, so the attack on the U.S. base in Qatar came as no surprise. But Iran was careful in retaliating, even notifying the U.S. in advance.

    The dropping of U.S. bombs, followed by Iran’s careful retaliation, was the opportunity for Trump to make an offer Iran couldn’t refuse.

    Gregory F. Treverton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-next-in-us-iran-relations-will-be-informed-by-the-two-countries-shared-history-259607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Baldwin and Colleagues Introduce No War Against Iran Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) joined her colleagues in introducing the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Iran without specific Congressional authorization. This action follows Israel’s military strikes against Iran and President Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that did not have congressional approval, threatening to further destabilize the Middle East and draw the United States into yet another military conflict. The bill contains an exception for self-defense as enshrined in the War Powers Act and applicable U.S. law.

    “I agree with the vast majority of Wisconsinites who don’t want to send American troops abroad and get us involved in another war in the Middle East. Period,” said Senator Baldwin. “President Trump got us into this situation by pulling out of the last deal, which would have restricted Iran’s nuclear program. No President, including Donald Trump, can start an all-out war without Congress signing off, and what Donald Trump did was frankly unconstitutional. The President should be laser-focused on diplomacy to reduce tensions and prevent our country from being launched into another conflict with no clear end in sight.”

    After President Trump’s bombing of Iran, Senator Baldwin released a statement slamming the decision, arguing that while Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, diplomacy is the only course of action, not an all-out war started by a President without the approval of Congress.

    The bill is led by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and co-sponsored by Senators Peter Welch (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Tina Smith (D-MN).

    Full text of the bill is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Simpson Votes to Boost National Security and Border Protections

    Source: US State of Idaho

    Rep. Simpson Votes to Boost National Security and Border Protections

    Washington, June 25, 2025

    WASHINGTON—The House Committee on Appropriations voted to advance the Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson supported this advancement. This bill invests in border security and public safety and supports the Trump administration’s policy initiatives.
    “Under President Trump’s leadership, we have the most secure border in American history,” said Rep. Simpson. “Now is the time to strengthen our border protections and provide our brave Border Patrol agents with the resources they need to keep our homeland safe. I have long maintained that border security is national security, and supporting this advancement reaffirms that commitment.”
    Highlights of the bill include:

    Upholding the America First vision by realigning the Department of Homeland Security’s priorities around its fundamental mission: defending the nation against the threat posed by terrorists, criminals, and foreign adversaries and ensuring the safety and security of every American.
    Prioritizing border security and the detention and swift removal of criminal aliens.
    Enhancing resources to detect and counter the spread of deadly fentanyl that poisons our communities.
    Protecting vulnerable children by strengthening exploitation investigations.
    Prohibiting funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Critical Race Theory.
    Prohibiting gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgery for ICE detainees.

    The measure was approved by the Committee with a vote of 36 to 27.
    This funding package will now go to the full floor of the House of Representatives for further consideration.  

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simin Fadaee, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester

    Iranians commemorate the 1979 revolution in Qom, central Iran. Mostafameraji via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

    Israel’s recent surprise attack on Iran was ostensibly aimed at neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme, but it didn’t just damage nuclear installations. It killed scientists, engineers and senior military personnel.

    Meanwhile, citizens with no ties to the government or military, became “collateral damage”. For 11 days, Israel’s attacks intensified across Tehran and other major cities.

    When the US joined the attack, dropping its bunker-buster bombs on sites in central Iran on June 21, it threatened to push the region closer to large-scale conflict. Israel’s calls for regime change in Iran were joined by the US president, Donald Trump, who took to social media on June 22 with the message: “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”

    Trump’s remarks are reminders of past US interventions. The threat of regime change by the most powerful state in the world carries particular weight in Iran, where memories of foreign-imposed coups and covert operations remain vivid and painful.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    In the early 1890s, Iran was rocked by a popular uprising after the shah granted a British company exclusive rights to the country’s tobacco industry. The decision was greeted with anger and in 1891 the country’s senior cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mirza Shirazi, issued a fatwa against tobacco use.

    A mass boycott ensued – even the shah’s wives reportedly gave up the habit. When it became clear that the boycott was going to hold, the shah cancelled the concession in January 1892. It was a clear demonstration of people power.

    This event is thought to have played a significant role in the development of the revolutionary movement that led to the Constitutional Revolution that took place between 1905 and 1911 and the establishment of a constitution and parliament in Iran.

    Rise of the Pahlavis

    Reza Shah, who founded the Pahlavi dynasty – which would be overthrown in the 1979 revolution and replaced by the Islamic Republic – rose to power following a British-supported coup in 1921.

    Autocrat: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

    During the first world war, foreign interference weakened Iran and the ruling Qajar dynasty. In 1921, with British support, army officer Reza Khan and politician Seyyed Ziaeddin Tabatabaee led a coup in Tehran. Claiming to be acting to save the monarchy, they arrested key opponents. By 1923, Reza Khan had become prime minister.

    In 1925, Reza Khan unseated the Qajars and founded the Pahlavi dynasty, becoming Reza Shah Pahlavi. This was a turning point in Iran’s history, marking the start of British dominance. The shah’s authoritarian rule focused on centralisation, modernisation and secularisation. It set the stage for the factors that would that eventually lead to the 1979 Revolution.

    In 1941, concerned at the close relationship Pahlavi had developed with Nazi Germany, Britain and its allies once again intervened in Iranian politics, forcing Pahlavi to abdicate. He was exiled to South Africa and his 22-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, was named shah in his place.

    The 1953 coup

    Mohammad Mosaddegh became Iran’s first democratically elected prime minister in 1951. He quickly began to introduce reforms and challenge the authority of the shah. Despite a sustained campaign of destabilisation, Mossadegh retained a high level of popular support, which he used to push through his radical programme. This included the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry, which was effectively controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – later British Petroleum (BP).

    Mohammad Mosaddegh in court martial by Ebrahim Golestan.
    Ebrahim Golestan via Wikimedia Commons

    In 1953, he was ousted in a CIA and MI6-backed coup and placed under house arrest. The shah, who had fled to Italy during the unrest, returned to power with western support.

    Within a short time, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi established an authoritarian regime that governed through repression and intimidation. He outlawed all opposition parties, and numerous activists involved in the oil nationalisation movement were either imprisoned or forced into exile.



    Read more:
    Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future is so uncertain

    The 1979 revolution: the oppression continues

    The shah’s rule became increasingly authoritarian and was also marked by the lavish lifestyles of the ruling elite and increasing poverty of the mass of the Iranian people. Pahlavi increasingly relied on his secret police, the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State.

    Meanwhile, a scholar and Islamic cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, had been rising in prominence especially after 1963, when Pahlavi’s unpopular land reforms mobilised a large section of society against his rule. His growing prominence brought him into confrontation with the government and in 1964 he was sent into exile. He remained abroad, living in Turkey, Iraq and France.

    By 1964 cleric Ruhollah Khomeini had become the focus for some anti-government protests in Iran.
    emam.com via Wikimedia Commons

    By 1978 a diverse alliance primarily made up of urban working and middle-class citizens had paralysed the country. While united in their resistance to the monarchy, participants were driven by a variety of ideological beliefs, including socialism, communism, liberalism, secularism, Islamism and nationalism. The shah fled into exile on January 16 1979 and Khomeini returned to Iran, which in March became an Islamic Republic with Khomeini at its head.

    But the US was not finished in its attempts to destabilise Iran. In 1980, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in initiating a brutal eight-year war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives and severely disrupted the country’s efforts at political and economic reconstruction.

    Iran and the US have remained bitter foes. Over the years ordinary Iranians have suffered tremendously under rounds of US-imposed sanctions, which have all but destroyed the economy in recent years.

    This new wave of foreign aggression has arrived at a time of significant domestic unrest within Iran. Since the Woman, Life, Freedom protests, which began in September 2022 after the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police, there has been a general groundswell of demand for social justice and democracy.

    But the convergence of external aggression and internal demands has brought national sovereignty and self-determination to the forefront, as it did during previous major struggles. While world powers gamble with Iran’s future, it is the Iranian people through their struggles and unwavering push for justice and democracy who must determine the country’s future.

    Simin Fadaee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Iran’s history has been blighted by interference from foreign powers – https://theconversation.com/irans-history-has-been-blighted-by-interference-from-foreign-powers-259700

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NEWS: Sanders Releases New Report Detailing Devastating Impact of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” on Health Care in America

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Vermont – Bernie Sanders
    WASHINGTON, June 25 – As Senate Republicans attempt to ram through legislation to cut health care for 16 million Americans in order to give tax breaks to billionaires without a single hearing or substantive debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today released a new report detailing how Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” would create a national health care emergency, drawing on responses from more than 750 health care providers across 47 states and the District of Columbia.
    Specifically, the report finds that the bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans in every state in the country and nearly double the uninsured rate in some states — including Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Washington. The legislation would kick 19 people off their health insurance for every millionaire household that receives a tax cut. The full state-by-state analysis of how uninsured rates will skyrocket available here.
    “This report makes it abundantly clear that the reconciliation bill that Republicans are attempting to ram through the Senate this week would be a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans throughout the country,” Sanders said. “Not only would this disastrous and deeply immoral bill throw 16 million people off of their health care and lead to over 50,000 unnecessary deaths every year, it would create a national health care emergency in America. It would devastate rural hospitals, community health centers and nursing homes throughout in our country and cause a massive spike in uninsured rates in red states and blue states alike. That’s not Bernie Sanders talking. That is precisely what doctors, health care providers and hospitals have told us.”
    Earlier this month, Sanders, alongside every Democratic member of the HELP Committee, sent a letter to committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urging him to schedule hearings with patients and health care providers to hear about the legislation’s disastrous impact on the health and well-being of the American people and markup this bill before it reaches the Senate floor for consideration. Cassidy declined.
    In today’s report, Sanders asked health care providers across the country to share what the bill would mean for their patients. Here are some of the responses from health care providers:
    A doctor in Texas — where the uninsured rate will reach 20%, the highest in the U.S. — said, “These cuts will cause rural hospitals in Texas to close entirely. As a neurologist, I am terrified that the closest hospital for many rural folks may then be hours away. During an ischemic stroke, there is only 3 hours of precious time . . . the increased travel time may cause unnecessary cases of paralysis and death.”
    A doctor from Florida — where the uninsured rate will surge to almost 19% — said, “Plainly said, children will die as a result of these cuts. Hospitals will cut back on ICU doctors, doctors will leave because of salary cuts, critical ancillary services will be reduced, more medical students will avoid going into pediatric residencies.”
    A rural health group from Louisiana — where the uninsured rate will nearly double to over 12% — said, “Louisiana’s rural hospitals and healthcare providers are already operating on razor-thin margins, struggling to keep their doors open while serving some of our most medically vulnerable communities. In Louisiana, 38% of hospitals operate on negative margins and 27% are currently vulnerable to closure. Medicaid cuts would worsen these losses, putting more hospitals at risk of shutting down entirely.” Another doctor from Louisiana added: “If Medicaid is cut, my patients will die. I realize I am being dramatic. It is a dramatic situation.”
    A social worker from South Carolina — where the uninsured rate will reach over 13% — said, “These changes would dramatically increase the administrative burden on our care team. We would likely need to hire at least 1–2 full-time administrative staff just to track patient eligibility, navigate complex documentation requirements, and assist families with enrollment or appeals. This would divert already limited funding away from clinical care and impose new costs on our department.”
    A doctor working at a community health center in Missouri – where the uninsured rate will increase to over 10% — said, “We may not be able to keep the doors open. We would potentially have to stop caring for many of our patients.”
    A doctor from Ohio — where the uninsured rate will rise to over 9% — said, “If the proposed bill is passed and [my patients’] Medicaid insurance is cut, it doesn’t mean their asthma will go away. It will mean that in most cases they will not receive preventative care, and as a result, their asthma will worsen . . . . Worse yet, they would be seen in the emergency room more often and admitted to the hospital. This care is more expensive, and less effective, than preventative care, and some children will die of their asthma.”
    The CEO of a hospital in Idaho — where the uninsured rate will rise to over 10% — said, “Our margin last year was -31%, burning through cash to see patients, the majority of whom are on Medicare or Medicaid. If they lose Medicaid, we’ll still take care of them because that’s what we do, but the bills won’t get paid.”
    “We cannot allow Republicans to take health care away from 16 million Americans in order to pay for more tax breaks to billionaires,” Sanders concluded. “As the Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, I will do everything that I can to see that it is defeated. Health care must be a human right for all, not a privilege for the wealthy few.”
    Read the report here.
    Read estimates of the increase in uninsured rates by state here and below.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA to Welcome Fourth Private Astronaut Mission to Space Station

    Source: NASA

    As part of NASA’s efforts to expand access to space, four private astronauts are in orbit following the successful launch of the fourth all private astronaut mission to the International Space Station.
    A SpaceX Dragon spacecraft lifted off at 2:31 a.m. EDT Wednesday from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, carrying Axiom Mission 4 crew members Peggy Whitson, former NASA astronaut and director of human spaceflight at Axiom Space as commander, ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) astronaut and pilot Shubhanshu Shukla, and mission specialists ESA (European Space Agency) project astronaut Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski of Poland and HUNOR (Hungarian to Orbit) astronaut Tibor Kapu of Hungary.
    “Congratulations to Axiom Space and SpaceX on a successful launch,” said NASA acting Administrator Janet Petro. “Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, America has expanded international participation and commercial capabilities in low Earth orbit. U.S. industry is enabling astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary to return to space for the first time in over forty years. It’s a powerful example of American leadership bringing nations together in pursuit of science, discovery, and opportunity.”
    A collaboration between NASA and ISRO allowed Axiom Mission 4 to deliver on a commitment highlighted by President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to send the first ISRO astronaut to the station. The space agencies are participating in five joint science investigations and two in-orbit science, technology, engineering, and mathematics demonstrations. NASA and ISRO have a long-standing relationship built on a shared vision to advance scientific knowledge and expand space collaboration.
    This mission serves as an example of the success derived from collaboration between NASA’s international partners and American commercial space companies.
    Live coverage of the spacecraft’s arrival will begin at 5 a.m., Thursday, June 26, on NASA+. Learn how to watch NASA content through a variety of platforms, including social media.
    The spacecraft is scheduled to autonomously dock at approximately 7 a.m. to the space-facing port of the space station’s Harmony module.
    Once aboard the station, Expedition 73 crew members, including NASA astronauts, Nicole Ayers, Anne McClain, and Jonny Kim, JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Takuya Onishi, and Roscosmos cosmonauts Kirill Peskov, Sergey Ryzhikov, and Alexey Zubritsky will welcome the astronauts.
    The crew is scheduled to remain at the space station, conducting microgravity research, educational outreach, and commercial activities for about two weeks before a return to Earth and splashdown off the coast of California.
    The International Space Station is a springboard for developing a low Earth economy. NASA’s goal is to achieve a strong economy off the Earth where the agency can purchase services as one of many customers to meet its science and research objectives in microgravity. NASA’s commercial strategy for low Earth orbit provides the government with reliable and safe services at a lower cost, empowers U.S. industry, and enables the agency to focus on Artemis missions to the Moon in preparation for Mars while also continuing to use low Earth orbit as a training and proving ground for those deep space missions.
    Learn more about NASA’s commercial space strategy at:
    https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-space
    -end-
    Josh FinchHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1100joshua.a.finch@nasa.gov
    Anna SchneiderJohnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111anna.c.schneider@nasa.gov

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Since DHS Immigration Enforcement in Los Angeles Began, Border Crossings Continue to Plummet

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: Since DHS Immigration Enforcement in Los Angeles Began, Border Crossings Continue to Plummet

    lass=”text-align-center”>Apprehensions and gotaways are almost 50% lower since operations in LA started 
    WASHINGTON – Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began removing worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from sanctuary city Los Angeles, apprehensions and gotaways at the U

    S

    Southern border plummeted nearly 50% from May to June

    Sanctuary cities are no longer a safe haven, and we have made the message clear: We will hunt down criminal illegal aliens and remove them from our communities

    On June 6, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) started an operation removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens

    Despite the rhetoric from politicians, riots, and wide-scale assaults on enforcement officers, DHS is continuing to make Los Angeles and the Southern border more secure

      
    The data speaks for itself: From June 1 -22 of this year, apprehensions totaled 5,414 while just one month ago in May, U

    S

    Border Patrol apprehensions were 9,577

    Since the beginning of June, gotaways totaled only 986, compared to 2,123 in May

     This is nearly a 50% decrease since operations started

     
    The difference in these stats from the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration is staggering

    From February 1 to June 22 of this year, apprehensions totaled only 37,518, while just one year ago nearly 600,000 apprehensions were made during the same time

    Gotaways showed a similar decrease with 11,867 between February and June in 2025, compared to over 94,007 during the same time in 2024

    “Secretary Noem is delivering on President Trump’s promise to secure the border by removing murders, pedophiles, and drug traffickers from Los Angeles,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin

    “In less than a month since we started LA enforcement operations, apprehensions and gotaways at the Southern border halved

    The world is hearing our message: If you come here illegally, we will find you, arrest you, and deport you

    We will not be deterred by the rioters and politicians in our mission to secure America and its border

    Migrants are turning back because they know the reality is they will ultimately leave in handcuffs

    ” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Russia says it is too early to assess US bomb damage to Iranian nuclear facilities

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The Kremlin said on Wednesday that it thought it was too early for anyone to have an accurate picture of the extent of damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear facilities by U.S. bombing last weekend.

    Asked if Russia had its own information on the degree of damage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “No. I don’t think that anyone can have realistic data now. It’s probably too early, we need to wait until such data appears.”

    U.S. President Donald Trump said at the weekend that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    However, three sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters that a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment had determined that the attacks had set back Tehran’s programme by only a matter of months.

    Russia has condemned the strikes on Iran, with which it signed a strategic cooperation agreement in January, as illegal, unjustified and unprovoked.

    Peskov said Russia had indications that there were open communications channels between Washington and Tehran, adding that Moscow was closely monitoring developments and still talking to Iran itself.

    -Reuters

  • Trump says damage from Iran strikes severe despite “inconclusive” intelligence

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the damage to Iranian nuclear sites from missile strikes over the weekendwas severe, though he also acknowledged that the available intelligence on the matter was inconclusive.

    His comments followed reports by Reuters and other media outlets on Tuesday revealing that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency had assessed that the strikes had set back Iran’s nuclear program by just a few months, despite administration officials saying the program had been obliterated.

    “The intelligence was very inconclusive,” Trump told reporters before joining a NATO summit in The Hague. “The intelligence says we don’t know. It could’ve been very severe. That’s what the intelligence suggests.”

    Later, during the same round of comments, Trump argued that Iran’s nuclear deal had been set back “basically decades, because I don’t think they’ll ever do it again”.

    Trump was sitting alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who both also cast doubt on the reliability of the DIA assessment.

    Rubio said the U.S. was opening an investigation into the leak of the DIA report. He also suggested the report’s contents had been misrepresented in the media.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes – E-002206/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002206/2025/rev.1
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Sophie Wilmès (Renew), Hilde Vautmans (Renew), Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew), Dan Barna (Renew), Billy Kelleher (Renew)

    In March 2025, US embassies in several EU Member States sent a letter to a number of private European companies that have contracts with the US Government, asking them to clarify whether they run DEI programmes that violate US President Trump’s executive order against race- and sex-based preferences and ending equal opportunities programmes (Executive Order No 14173). The letter sought to clarify that the executive order applies to any firm doing business with the US Government, including non-US companies. The document also stated that the existence of such programmes could prevent these companies from working with the US Government in the future.

    The media reported that companies in Belgium, France and Italy received this letter, with the French Government denouncing it as ‘unacceptable interference’. A number of companies have said they will comply with the request, such as GSK in Belgium.

    In this context:

    • 1.Is the Commission aware of the Member States in which companies have received this letter and which companies have accepted or refused the request?
    • 2.What is the Commission doing to address this situation?
    • 3.What is the Commission doing to prevent European companies from being subject to interference from non-EU countries that advocate values contrary to our own?

    Submitted: 2.6.2025

    Last updated: 25 June 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Iranian President Declares ‘End of 12-Day War’

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    TEHRAN, June 25 (Xinhua) — Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Tuesday declared “the end of the 12-day war” and called on all government bodies and revolutionary institutions to focus their efforts on reconstruction.

    “We are witnessing a ceasefire and the end of the 12-day war imposed on the Iranian nation by Israel’s adventurism,” M. Pezeshkian said in an address to the Iranian people after the ceasefire agreement came into force.

    “The aggressive enemy failed to achieve its sinister goals of destroying nuclear facilities and disrupting nuclear research, as well as inciting social unrest,” the head of state noted.

    During a telephone conversation with UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on Tuesday, M. Pezeshkian said that his country is ready to resolve issues within the international framework and at the negotiating table.

    The United States and Israel are seeking to sow discord and hostility among Islamic countries, the Iranian president said. Iran seeks to strengthen unity and peace in the region and considers them the basis for accelerating development, he said.

    On June 13, Israel launched major airstrikes on various areas of Iran, including nuclear and military sites, killing senior commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. Iran responded with a series of missile and drone strikes that caused deaths and extensive damage.

    On Saturday, the US Air Force attacked three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, to which Iran responded on Monday with a missile strike on the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

    Following this, US President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran would go into effect on Tuesday at around 04:00 GMT. Both sides later confirmed the start of the truce. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • NATO leaders set to back Trump defence spending goal at Hague summit

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    NATO leaders gathered in The Hague on Wednesday for a summit tailor-made for U.S. President Donald Trump, with European allies hoping a pledge to hike defence spending will prompt him to dispel doubts about his commitment to the alliance.

    The summit is expected to endorse a higher defence spending goal of 5% of GDP – a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans’ fears that Russia poses an increasingly direct threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that it was not easy for countries to find the money for extra defence spending but said it was vital to do so.

    “There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative,” he told reporters on Wednesday morning.

    NATO officials are hoping the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at the weekend, will not overshadow the gathering, hosted by Rutte in his home city.

    Trump has threatened not to protect NATO members if they fail to meet spending targets and he raised doubts about his commitment again on his way to the summit by avoiding directly endorsing the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defence clause.

    Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he said there were “numerous definitions” of the clause. “I’m committed to saving lives. I’m committed to life and safety. And I’m going to give you an exact definition when I get there,” he said.

    The new target – to be achieved over the next 10 years – is a big increase on the current goal of 2% of GDP, although it will be measured differently. It would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in extra annual spending.

    Countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence – such as troops and weapons – and 1.5% on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle military vehicles.

    All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal. Madrid says it can meet its military commitments to NATO by spending much less – a view disputed by Rutte.

    But Rutte accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his intense efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly.

    UNUSUAL INSIGHT INTO SUMMIT DIPLOMACY

    Trump gave an unusual insight into those efforts on Tuesday by posting a private message in which Rutte lavished praise on him and congratulated him on “decisive action in Iran”.

    “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done,” Rutte told Trump.

    “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way as they should, and it will be your win.”

    To satisfy Trump, Rutte has also kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge.

    The text is expected to cite Russia as a threat and reaffirm allies’ support for Ukraine but not dwell on those issues, given Trump has taken a more conciliatory stance towards Moscow and been less supportive of Kyiv than his predecessor, Joe Biden.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had to settle for a seat at the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than a seat at the main meeting on Wednesday, although Trump said he would probably meet with Zelenskiy separately.

    Zelenskiy and his aides have said they want to talk to Trump about buying U.S. weapons including Patriot missile defence systems and increasing pressure on Moscow through tougher sanctions.

    The Kremlin accused NATO of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a “fiend of hell” in order to justify its big increase in defence spending.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai leads industrial listening tours to New Taipei Industrial Park, embodying the spirit of Taiwan to achieve a new economic miracle.

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    President Lai Ching-Te led a delegation, including Presidential Secretary-General Pan Men-An, Presidential Office Spokesperson Kuo Ya-Hui, Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-Hsin, Minister of Economic Affairs Ku Jyh-Huei, and the administrative team, on an “Industrial Listening Tour” at New Taipei Industrial Park on May 2. The delegation engaged in in-depth exchanges with important representatives from the region’s electronics, textile, medical equipment, HVAC, and defense industries.
    On April 3, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he would impose a 32% reciprocal tariff on Taiwan. President Lai immediately convened industry representatives to his official residence on April 5 to listen to their concerns and officially announced the government’s response measures to the public on the afternoon of April 6, which specifically demonstrated the government’s determination to overcome difficulties with the industry. In the face of US tariff policy, the government has launched the first round of negotiations and continues to negotiate based on the three principles of ensuring national interests, maintaining Taiwan’s industrial development space, and protecting Taiwan’s industrial ecosystem.
    To respond to industry concerns, President Lai and Premier Cho have conducted nearly 20 listening tours. The Executive Yuan has approved a special bill allocating NT$410 billion, including NT$93 billion to support impacted industries and NT$100 billion to subsidize Taiwan Power Company for stable electricity supply, easing operational burdens on business.
    At the forum, New Taipei Mayor Hou Yu-Ih and Legislators Su Chiao-Hui, Wu Ping-Jui, Lin Shu-Fen, Lee Kuen-Cheng and Hung Mong-Kai attended to show their support for local industries. Industry representatives raised concerns such as ensuring a stable electricity supply, promoting the integration of SMEs into the semiconductor supply chain, shortening medical device review processes, and implementing ESCO energy-saving technologies for net-zero transformation. President Lai responded that deep energy-saving through ESCOs not only improves energy efficiency but also qualifies for tax credits of equipment investment. Minister Kuo noted that the ministry has budgeted for deep energy-saving projects that offer financial incentives based on actual savings, potentially reducing business power costs by 8-12%. Secretary-General Kung added that the government’s A+ Program encourages innovative R&D and allows companies to hire full-time professionals to support their projects.
    President Lai pointed out that according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast, amid the turbulent international economic situation, the economic growth rate of most countries has declined, but Taiwan has increased its forecast from 2.7% to 2.9%, demonstrating the international community’s high recognition of Taiwan’s economic prospects and the high resilience of Taiwan’s industries. He highlighted that Taiwan has consistently grown stronger through adversity –this is the spirit of Taiwan and the hallmark of its industries.
    In conclusion, the President reaffirmed that the government will adhere to the principle of “Speed and order in balance” to advance negotiations in the face of Trump’s tariff policy. It should not only focus on speed but also ensure the overall interests of the country and promote the three major industrial strategies for the future development of Taiwan’s industries, including:
    1. Foresight and sustainability through smart innovation;
    2. Competing in space and exploring the oceans;
    3. Rooted in Taiwan, expanding globally, strengthening ties with the U.S., and promoting Taiwan to the world.
    The government is committed to driving industrial AI adoption, advancing marine industry development, transitioning to diverse green energy sources reinforcing power system resilience, and pursuing regional economic integration through bilateral investment agreements with democratic partners. With the enduring spirit of Taiwan, we are fully capable of building a resilient economy and achieving a new economic miracle together.

    Spokesman: Mr. Liu Chi-Chuan (Deputy Director General, BIP)
    Contact Number: 886-7-3613349, 0911363680
    Email: lcc12@bip.gov.tw

    Contact Person: Liang, You-Wen (Director of Taipei Branch, BIP)
    Contact Number: 886-2-2655-8527, 0963163008
    Email: yuwen818@bip.gov.tw

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • Axiom 4: Astronauts from India, Poland, Hungary launched on first space station mission

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    NASA retiree turned private astronaut Peggy Whitson was launched on the fifth spaceflight of her career early on Wednesday, joined by crewmates from India, Poland and Hungary heading for their countries’ first visit to the International Space Station.

    The astronaut team lifted off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, at about 2:30 a.m. EDT (0630 GMT; 12 Noon IST)), beginning the latest mission organized by Texas-based startup Axiom Space in partnership with Elon Musk’s rocket venture SpaceX.

    The four-member crew was carried aloft on a towering SpaceX launch vehicle consisting of a Crew Dragon capsule perched atop a two-stage Falcon 9 rocket.

    Live video showed the towering spacecraft streaking into the night sky over Florida’s Atlantic coast trailed by a brilliant yellowish plume of fiery exhaust.

    It marked the first Crew Dragon flight since Musk briefly threatened to decommission the spacecraft after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Musk’s government contracts in a high-profile political feud between the two men earlier this month.

    Axiom 4’s autonomously operated Crew Dragon was expected to reach the ISS after a flight of about 28 hours, then dock with the outpost as the two vehicles soar together in orbit some 250 miles (400 km) above Earth.

    If all goes according to plan, the Axiom 4 crew will be welcomed aboard the orbiting space laboratory Thursday morning by its seven current resident occupants – three astronauts from the U.S., one from Japan and three cosmonauts from Russia.

    Whitson, 65, and her three Axiom 4 crewmates – Shubhanshu Shukla, 39, of India, Sławosz Uznański-Wiśniewski, 41, of Poland, and Tibor Kapu, 33, of Hungary – are slated to spend 14 days aboard the space station conducting microgravity research.

    The mission stands as the fourth such flight since 2022 arranged by Axiom as the Houston-headquartered company builds on its business of putting astronauts sponsored by private companies and foreign governments into Earth orbit.

    For India, Poland and Hungary, the launch marked a return to human spaceflight after more than 40 years and the first mission to send astronauts from each of those three countries to the International Space Station.

    The Axiom 4 participation of Shukla, an Indian air force pilot, is seen by India’s own space program as a kind of precursor to the debut crewed mission of its Gaganyaan orbital spacecraft, planned for 2027.

    The Axiom 4 crew is led by Whitson, who retired from NASA in 2018 after a pioneering career that included her tenure as the first woman to serve as the U.S. space agency’s chief astronaut. She also was the first woman to command an ISS expedition and the first to do so twice.

    Now a consultant and director of human spaceflight for Axiom, she has logged a career total of 675 days in space, a U.S. record, during three NASA missions and a fourth flight to space as commander of the Axiom 2 mission in 2023.

    The Axiom 4 mission was previously scheduled for liftoff on Tuesday before a forecast of unsuitable weather forced a 24-hour postponement.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election flows reveal nearly 90% of Greens preferenced Labor ahead of Coalition

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    Minor party preference flows for the federal election have been released, with Labor winning Greens preferences by 88.2–11.8, while the Coalition won One Nation preferences by 74.5–24.5. I also cover a SA state poll that gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead.

    The Australian Electoral Commission’s results for the May 3 federal election now show how minor parties’ preferences flowed between Labor and the Coalition. The Greens won 12.2% of the national primary vote, and their preferences favoured Labor over the Coalition by 88.2–11.8. That’s a 2.5% preference flow gain for Labor since the 2022 election.

    One Nation had 6.4% of primary votes. Their preferences favoured the Coalition over Labor by 74.5–25.5, a 10.2% preference flow gain for the Coalition. Independents made up 7.3% of primary votes, and their preferences favoured Labor by 67.2–32.8, a 3.4% gain for Labor.

    Including Trumpet of Patriots (1.9% of primary votes) with others, others made up 7.7% of primary votes and their preferences favoured the Coalition by 57.3–42.7, a 0.6% gain for the Coalition since 2022 if United Australia Party (4.1% in 2022) is included with others then.

    The AEC formally declared the poll by returning the writs on June 12. Results can be legally challenged within 40 days of this declaration, so by July 22.

    In Bradfield, Teal Nicolette Boele only won by 26 votes against the Liberals, and this result could be challenged.

    As the AEC does not want to disturb the ballot papers until any challenge is resolved by the courts, it is for now using an estimated two-party result in Bradfield (55.0–45.0 to the Liberals against Labor). Analyst Ben Raue believes this estimate is understating Labor in Bradfield by 4.4%.

    If Raue is right, the current national two-party vote (55.22–44.78 to Labor) is very slightly understating Labor.

    While One Nation’s preference shift helped the Coalition, there were compensatory shifts to Labor from Greens and independent voters. The combined primary vote for One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots was down 0.8% from 2022 to 8.3%, while independents were up 2.0%.

    Applying 2022 election flows to primary votes at this election only overstates Labor by 0.1% compared to their actual two-party vote.

    In my poll review article on June 5, I said respondent allocated preferences in final polls did not show a large gap in the Coalition’s favour from using 2022 election flows that had occurred in polls earlier in the year.

    It’s likely that Labor’s share of preferences from Greens and Teal-type independents rose close to the election. People who voted for these candidates may have been disappointed with Labor’s environmental record, but both Peter Dutton and Donald Trump helped Labor with these people.

    In the last term, the Greens were economically left-wing as well as pro-environment. Voters who supported the Greens because of their economic agenda are probably less likely to prefer the Coalition to Labor than environmental voters.

    The Poll Bludger has a graph that shows that, in federal elections since 2004, Labor’s share of Greens preferences was at a record high this election, but their share of One Nation preferences was at a record low.

    Weak Labor flows to Boele

    In Bradfield, Labor preferences favoured Boele by 68.6–31.4 against the Liberals.
    There were 16 other seats where Labor preferences were distributed between the Coalition and a non-Coalition candidate. The Labor flow to Boele was the second weakest in such seats. This weak flow almost cost Boele Bradfield.

    The only seat that had a weaker Labor preference flow to a non-Coalition candidate was Maranoa, where the non-Coalition candidate was One Nation. Labor preferences in Maranoa split 57.9–42.1 to the Liberal National Party against One Nation. In 13 of the 17 seats, Labor preferences flowed at over 75% rates to the non-Coalition candidate.

    In early April, the ABC reported Boele had made a crude sexual remark to a 19-year-old employee at a hair salon after receiving a haircut and was banned from that salon. This may explain the weaker preference flow from Labor voters.

    Weak Greens flows to Teals in Teal vs Labor contests

    There were three seats where the final two were Labor and a Teal independent: Bean, Franklin and Fremantle. In Bean and Fremantle, the Liberals recommended preferences to the Teal on their how to vote material, but not in Franklin.

    Labor held all three seats, but only by 50.3–49.7 in Bean and 50.7–49.3 in Fremantle. Labor won much more easily in Franklin, by 57.8–42.2, where they benefited from Liberal how to vote cards.

    In Bean, Greens preferences only favoured Teal Jessie Price by 50.6–49.4 over Labor, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 80.0–20.0. In Fremantle, Greens preferences favoured Teal Kate Hulett by 52.9–47.1, while Liberal preferences favoured her by 76.5–23.5. In Franklin, Greens preferences favoured Teal Peter George by 53.8–46.2.

    In Bean and Fremantle, had Greens preferences been stronger for the Teal, Labor would have lost to a more pro-environment candidate. Perhaps Labor benefited on Greens preferences owing to the Greens’ more economic left-wing agenda.

    And a national Morgan poll, conducted June 2–22 from a sample of 3,957, gave Labor a 58–42 lead, unchanged from the previous Morgan poll in May. Primary votes were 37.5% Labor (up 0.5), 31% Coalition (steady), 12% Greens (up 0.5), 6% One Nation (steady) and 13.5% for all Others (down one).

    By 43–41.5, voters thought the country was headed in the right direction, the first time right direction has led since February 2023. The overall net +1.5 rating is +48 with Labor voters, +11.5 with Greens, -43 with Coalition voters, -80.5 with One Nation voters and -17.5 with all Others.

    Labor holds massive lead in SA

    The next South Australian state election will be held in March 2026. A YouGov poll for The Adelaide Advertiser, conducted May 15–28 from a sample of 903, gave Labor a massive 67–33 lead over the Liberals (54.6–45.4 to Labor at the March 2022 election). Primary votes were 48% Labor, 21% Liberals, 14% Greens, 7% One Nation, 8% independents and 2% others.

    If the results at next March’s election reflect this poll, the Liberals would hold just two of the 47 lower house seats on a uniform swing. It would be easily their worst result in SA state history.

    In Australian electoral history, there has only been one bigger landslide: when Western Australian Labor defeated the Liberals and Nationals by 69.7–30.3 at the March 2021 state election.

    Socialist likely to be next New York City mayor

    I covered today’s AEST New York City Democratic mayoral primary election for The Poll Bludger. While preferences won’t be tabulated until next Tuesday, the socialist Zohran Mamdani leads former New York governor Andrew Cuomo by 43.5–36.4 on primary votes, and is virtually certain to win. As the Democratic nominee, Mamdani is likely to win the November general election.

    The article also covers Donald Trump’s ratings and polls in Israel.

    Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Election flows reveal nearly 90% of Greens preferenced Labor ahead of Coalition – https://theconversation.com/election-flows-reveal-nearly-90-of-greens-preferenced-labor-ahead-of-coalition-259438

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Iranian president announces ‘end of the 12-day war’

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Tuesday announced the “end of the 12-day war” and urged all government bodies and revolutionary institutions to focus all their efforts on reconstruction.

    “Today, after your brave and historic resilience, we witness a ceasefire and the end of the 12-day war imposed on the Iranian nation by the adventurism” of Israel, Pezeshkian said in a message to the Iranian people after the ceasefire came into force.

    “The aggressive enemy failed to achieve its nefarious goals of destroying nuclear facilities and undermining nuclear knowledge, as well as inciting social unrest,” he said.

    In contrast, the collapse of “the false invincibility” of Israel and its allies, along with the extensive destruction of important facilities and centers in the occupied territories, sent a key message to the world that the cost of adventurism against great Iran is exceedingly heavy, he added.

    In a phone call with the President of the United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on Tuesday, Pezeshkian said that his country is ready to resolve issues within international frameworks and at the negotiating table.

    The United States and Israel seek to create discord and enmity among Islamic countries, he said, noting that Iran is seeking to strengthen unity and peace in the region and considers them a basis for accelerating development.

    On June 13, Israel launched major airstrikes on different areas in Iran, including nuclear and military sites, killing senior commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians. Iran responded by launching several waves of missile and drone attacks on Israel, inflicting casualties and heavy damage.

    On Saturday, the U.S. Air Force bombed three Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In retaliation, Iran on Monday targeted the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with missiles.

    Following Iran’s attack, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that a ceasefire between the two sides would begin around 0400 GMT Tuesday. Both Iran and Israel later confirmed the start of the ceasefire. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Wild swings in the oil price make the Reserve Bank’s job harder

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

    It looks, at least for now, as though tensions in the Middle East are easing somewhat. It appears much less likely Iran will try to close the
    Strait of Hormuz, through which flows about a fifth of the world’s oil.

    In response, oil prices have dropped to a two-week low below US$70 a barrel.

    The economists at the Reserve Bank will be breathing a sigh of relief. A surge in oil prices would have injected more uncertainty into the global outlook. It would have made a decision on whether to cut interest rates in July harder.

    Financial markets are betting on a rate cut at the July 7–8 meeting, but three of the four major bank economists are tipping August as more likely.

    A tough global backdrop

    The global economic environment is particularly challenging. Even before the recent increased tensions in the Middle East, the Trump tariff announcements (and withdrawals and re-impositions) were the major cause of the uncertainty around the domestic economy.

    And there is a lot of “uncertainty”. Journalist Shane Wright noted the word “uncertain” appeared 134 times in the Reserve Bank’s latest Statement on Monetary Policy. Something similar has been noted in the United Kingdom.

    There have been wild swings in the oil price in recent days. There was a surge on market fears Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. The price slid when a ceasefire was announced. It rose again when the ceasefire was broken within hours. As the fragile truce appeared to hold, the price of oil has now gone back down.

    Assumptions on the oil price

    Forecasting where it will be in a day or week, let alone in a month or a year, is difficult. But economic forecasts underlying monetary policy decisions need to incorporate some view. The Reserve Bank generally assumes the oil price stays at its current level in the short term. It then uses the price in forward contracts as a basis for its forecasts beyond that.

    A sustained jump in oil prices would have posed quite a dilemma for the Reserve Bank.

    Generally a shock that adds to inflation would lead to the bank raising interest rates. In contrast, a shock that weakens economic activity would lead to the Bank lowering rates.

    But a surge in oil prices would likely both increase inflation (by pushing up petrol prices) and weaken activity (by disrupting world trade and eroding consumers’ purchasing power).

    If the oil price surge was expected to be short-lived, it is unlikely to get baked into inflationary expectations. The bank would then probably disregard it. But assessing the longevity of disruptions to the global oil market is not easy.

    Monthly inflation drops to 2.1%

    On Wednesday, the monthly consumer price index (CPI) fell to 2.1% in May from 2.4% in April. This is the equal lowest level since March 2001.

    But the monthly reading will probably not impress RBA Governor Michele Bullock. In her most recent press conference, she commented that “we get four readings on inflation a year”, referring to the quarterly inflation reports. She was dismissive of what she termed “the monthly indicator which is very volatile”.

    In taking its decisions, the bank often relies on an underlying inflation measure called the “trimmed mean”. This excludes items with the largest price movements up or down, so it removes petrol prices when they move by large amounts. This measure was 2.4% in the monthly report.

    Petrol prices are also a significant contributor to the volatility of the monthly CPI.

    Further cuts are likely

    Both headline and underlying inflation are now within the central bank’s 2–3% target range. In its most recent outlook, the Reserve Bank forecast underlying inflation would remain in the target band, even if it made another two cuts in rates this year.

    So a further interest rate cut remains likely. If it doesn’t cut in July, the bank could wait for the next quarterly inflation report on July 30, and then cut at the August 12 meeting.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the global economy as being “in a pretty dangerous place right now”.

    “There’s a lot of volatility, unpredictability, uncertainty in the global economy,” he said. That is one thing that is not uncertain.

    John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank.

    – ref. Wild swings in the oil price make the Reserve Bank’s job harder – https://theconversation.com/wild-swings-in-the-oil-price-make-the-reserve-banks-job-harder-259555

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cramer, Sullivan Introduce Bill to Support Construction of “Golden Dome” Missile Defense System

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
    Bill funds modernization of PARCS Radar in Cavalier
    ***Click here for photos.***
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the United States’ adversaries have developed and deployed next-generation missile delivery systems; the threat of such strategic weapons has become more complex. Despite this, the U.S. missile defense policy has been severely limited to only staying ahead of rogue threats and accidental or unauthorized missile launches.
    In the face of these emerging and pressing threats, missile defense plays an essential role in identifying, tracking, deterring, and defeating adversary missiles and other threats against the nation. To improve the missile defense capabilities of the United States, U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Airland Subcommittee and co-chair of the Defense Modernization Caucus, was joined by fellow SASC member U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) in introducing the Ground and Orbital Launched Defeat of Emergent Nuclear Destruction and Other Missile Engagements (GOLDEN DOME) Act of 2025. U.S. Representative Mark Messmer (R-IN-08) introduced a companion measure in the House.
    Click here to watch 

    The bill is a sweeping legislative initiative to modernize and expand U.S. missile defense capabilities across all domains to protect the homeland against ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and drone threats. Specifically, it focuses on enhancing the all-domain awareness of the U.S missile defense system, bolstering the capacity of U.S. missiles and drones to defend against threats from rogue nations as well as near-peer nations, and accelerating the development of new capabilities to keep pace with future threats, particularly from hypersonics and cruise missiles.
    The GOLDEN DOME Act complements President Donald Trump’s executive order directing the implementation of a next-generation missile defense shield for the nation. The president nominated Vice Chief of Space Operations General Michael Guetlein to lead the implementation of the system.
    “Our adversaries have developed more advanced long-range weapons over the last couple of decades, posing a significant threat to our national security,” said Cramer. “We have to act in order to defend against the evolving and complex threat landscape. Senator Sullivan and I introduced the GOLDEN DOME Act to build a layered missile defense system, which protects our homeland from catastrophic attacks from modern missiles. Our bill puts the legislative muscle behind President Trump’s executive order to support his innovative vision of protecting our great nation from current and future threats. The Golden Dome is great for America, great for North Dakota, and great for Alaska. The time is now to prioritize the defense of the United States by modernizing our missile defense infrastructure.”
    “The escalating missile threats we’ve witnessed from the Iranian terrorist regime and the rapidly evolving missile threats from Russia and China demonstrate why we need to develop a robust, modernized missile defense system to protect the entire country—which the GOLDEN DOME Act will do,” said Sullivan. “The three prongs of successful policy in D.C. are presidential leadership, appropriated funding and comprehensive authorizing legislation. We have all three of these elements behind this historic Golden Dome initiative. President Trump has, for years, going back to his first term, driven the vision of a layered, open architecture missile defense system. Congress is stepping up with a down payment appropriation of $25 billion in the reconciliation bill. And now, we are introducing the GOLDEN DOME Act to cement this vision in law. The GOLDEN DOME Act will incorporate space-based sensors and new intercept technologies, significantly expand and modernize existing infrastructure, like the ground-based missile interceptor fields at Alaska’s Fort Greely and North Dakota’s PARCS radar system, and enhance all-domain awareness to counter, detect, track, and defeat potential missile threats. The great State of Alaska has been—and will continue to be—the cornerstone of our missile defense system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to get this important legislation to President Trump’s desk to better secure the homeland.” 
    “In a world where hostile adversaries like Russia and China present an ever-present nuclear threat, America must stand ready to prevent nuclear weapons from harming our citizens,” said Messmer. “The Golden Dome Act fulfills President Trump’s initiative to keep America safe with this state of the art missile defense shield.”
    The GOLDEN DOME Act strengthens the Space Development Agency’s (SDA) independence and accelerates future tranches, which will likely be operated out of Grand Forks Air Force Base. Among other provisions, the bill requires the acceleration of the modernization and digitization of the Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS), located at North Dakota’s Cavalier Space Force Station. PARCS is a single-faced, multi-function, UHF-Band, phased-array radar system, which tracks over half of all earth-orbiting objects. The modernization of PARCS improves detection of intercontinental and sea-launched missile threats, as well as improves space domain awareness capabilities.

    This legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Katie Britt (R-AL), Jim Banks (R-IN), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and Tim Scott (R-SC).
    Click here for bill text. Click here for expanded summary.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • Fragile ceasefire holding, Trump envoy says peace talks with Iran ‘promising’

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The ceasefire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump between Iran and Israel appeared to be holding on Wednesday a day after both countries signalled that their air war had ended, at least for now.

    Each side claimed victory on Tuesday after 12 days of war, which the U.S. joined with airstrikes in support of Israel to take out Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities.

    Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said late on Tuesday that talks between the United States and Iran were “promising” and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal.

    “We are already talking to each other, not just directly but also through interlocutors. I think that the conversations are promising. We are hopeful that we can have a long-term peace agreement that resurrects Iran,” Witkoff said in an interview on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” show.

    “Now it’s for us to sit down with the Iranians and get to a comprehensive peace agreement, and I am very confident that we are going to achieve that,” he added.

    Trump said over the weekend that U.S. stealth bombers had “obliterated” Iran’s programme to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its enrichment activities are for civilian purposes only.

    But Trump’s claim appeared to be contradicted by an initial report by one of his administration’s intelligence agencies, according to three people familiar with the matter.

    One of the sources said Iran’s enriched uranium stocks had not been eliminated, and the country’s nuclear programme, much of which is buried deep underground, may have been set back only a month or two.

    The White House said the intelligence assessment was “flat out wrong.”

    According to the report, which was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities, but did not collapse underground buildings, said one of the people familiar with its findings.

    Some centrifuges remained intact, the Washington Post said, citing an unnamed person familiar with the report.

    Trump’s administration told the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday that its weekend strikes had “degraded” Iran’s nuclear programme, short of Trump’s assertion that the facilities had been “obliterated.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that the attack had removed the nuclear threat against Israel and he was determined to thwart any attempt by Tehran to revive its weapons program.

    “We have removed two immediate existential threats to us: the threat of nuclear annihilation and the threat of annihilation by 20,000 ballistic missiles,” he said.

    Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country had successfully ended the war in what he called a “great victory,” according to Iranian media.

    Pezeshkian also told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Tehran was ready to resolve differences with the U.S., according to official news agency IRNA.

    Israel launched the surprise air war on June 13, attacking Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military commanders in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

    Iran, which denies trying to build nuclear weapons, retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites and cities.

    RESTRICTIONS LIFTED

    Israel’s military lifted restrictions on activity across the country at 8 p.m. local time (1700 GMT) on Tuesday, and officials said Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s main airport near Tel Aviv, had reopened. Iran’s airspace likewise will be reopened, state-affiliated Nournews reported.

    Oil prices edged higher on Wednesday, finding some respite after plummeting in the last two sessions, as investors assessed the stability of the ceasefire and the diminished prospect of an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

    The truce appeared fragile: Both Israel and Iran took hours to acknowledge they had accepted the ceasefire and accused each other of violating it.

    Trump scolded both sides but aimed especially stinging criticism at Israel, telling the close U.S. ally to “calm down now.” He later said Israel called off further attacks at his command.

    Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, said he told his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth, that his country would respect the ceasefire unless Iran violated it. Pezeshkian likewise said Iran would honour the ceasefire as long as Israel did, according to Iranian media.

    Israeli armed forces chief of staff Eyal Zamir said a “significant chapter” of the conflict had concluded but the campaign against Iran was not over. He said the military would refocus on its war against Iran-backed Hamas militants in Gaza.

    Iranian authorities said 610 people were killed in their country by Israeli strikes and 4,746 injured. Iran’s retaliatory bombardment killed 28 people in Israel, the first time its air defences were penetrated by large numbers of Iranian missiles.

    (Reuters)

  • ‘Fake News’: Trump slams CNN, NYT for reports stating US strikes did not destroy Iranian nuclear sites

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    ‘Fake News’: Trump slams CNN, NYT for reports stating US strikes did not destroy Iranian nuclear sites

    US President Donald Trump has slammed CNN for its report suggesting that the US strikes did not destroy nuclear sites in Iran. Trump said CNN, along with The New York Times, teamed up to “demean one of the most successful military strikes in history” and termed it “fake news.”

    He reiterated his claim that the US has completely destroyed nuclear sites in Iran. According to him, both the media outlets faced backlash from the people.

    In a statement shared on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump stated, “FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY. THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!”

    The findings, first reported by CNN, citing seven individuals briefed on the assessments, noted that the early evaluation from the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggested that the attacks only caused a temporary disruption, possibly setting Tehran’s nuclear program back by a few months.

    The findings based on a battle damage assessment by US Central Command contradict public claims made by US President Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who asserted that the US “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, CNN reported.

    As per CNN, citing intelligence sources, the centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear facilities remain mostly functional, and enriched uranium stockpiles were likely moved before the strikes.

    The US strikes targeted Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, which inflicted heavy damage to above-ground structures, such as power infrastructure and facilities involved in uranium metal conversion, but failed to neutralise Iran’s underground enrichment systems, as reported by CNN.

    As per CNN, citing officials, the US used its B-2 bombers that dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs during the assault; underground components remained largely intact.

    Israel, which conducted their own strikes before the US operation, also found less damage at Fordow than anticipated; however, it was earlier believed that the combined efforts may delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions by up to two years, as reported by CNN. The long-standing doubts over whether the US’s Massive Ordnance Penetrators could penetrate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites.

    Earlier on Tuesday (local time), Trump has stated that Iran will “never be able to rebuild” its nuclear facilities after recent American airstrikes carried out under “Operation Midnight Hammer” over the weekend while claiming that the sites were now “under rock”, referring to Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Taking to his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump wrote, “IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!”

    (ANI)

  • MIL-OSI Global: Hauntingly familiar? Why comparing the US strikes on Iran to Iraq in 2003 is off target

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Benjamin Isakhan, Professor of International Politics, Deakin University

    On June 21, the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – pounding deeply buried centrifuge sites with bunker-busting bombs.

    Conducted jointly with Israel, the operation took place without formal congressional authorisation, drawing sharp criticism from lawmakers that it was unconstitutional and “unlawful”.



    Read more:
    Why the US strikes on Iran are illegal and can set a troubling precedent

    Much of the political debate has centred on whether the US is being pulled into “another Middle East war”.

    The New York Times’ Nick Kristof weighed in on the uncertainties following the US’ surprise bombing of Iran and Tehran’s retaliation.

    Even US Vice President JD Vance understood the unease, stating:

    People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

    These reactions have revived comparisons with George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq: a Republican president launching military action on the basis of flimsy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) evidence.

    Hauntingly familiar?

    While the surface similarity is tempting, the comparison may in fact obscure more about President Donald Trump than it reveals.

    Comparisons to the Iraq War

    In 2003, Bush ordered a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on flawed intelligence, claiming Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs. And while the war was extremely unpopular across the world, it did have bipartisan congressional support.

    The invasion toppled Iraq’s regime in just a few weeks.

    What followed was a brutal conflict and almost a decade of US occupation. The war triggered the rise of militant jihadism and a horrific sectarian conflict that reverberates today.

    So far, Trump’s one-off strikes on Iran bear little resemblance to the 2003 Iraq intervention.

    These were precision strikes within the context of a broader Iran-Israel war, designed to target Iran’s nuclear program.

    And, so far, there appears to be little appetite for a full-scale military invasion or “boots on the ground”, and regime change seems unlikely despite some rumblings from both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Yet the comparison to Iraq persists, especially among audiences suspicious of repeated US military interventions in the Middle East. But poorly considered analogies carry costs.

    For one, the Iraq comparison sheds little light on Trump’s foreign policy.



    Read more:
    The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. Here are 3 scenarios for what might happen next

    Trump’s foreign policy

    To better understand the recent strikes on Iran, we need to look at Trump’s broader foreign policy.

    Much has been made of his “America first” mantra, a complex mix of prioritising domestic interests, questioning international agreements, and challenging traditional alliances.

    Others, including Trump himself, have often touted his “no war” approach, pointing to large-scale military withdrawals from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq,and the fact he had not started a new war.

    But beyond this, Trump has increased US military spending and frequently used his office to conduct targeted strikes on adversaries – especially across the Middle East.

    For example, in 2017 and 2018, Trump ordered airstrikes on a Syrian airbase and chemical weapons facilities. In both instances, he bypassed Congress and used precision air power to target weapons infrastructure without pursuing regime change.

    Also, from 2017 to 2021, Trump authorised US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, enabling airstrikes that targeted militant cells but also led to mass civilian casualties.

    Trump’s policy was the subject of intense bipartisan opposition, culminating in the first successful congressional invocation of the War Powers Resolution – though it was ultimately vetoed by Trump.

    And in 2020, Trump launched a sequence of attacks on Iranian assets in Iraq. This included a drone strike that killed senior Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani.

    Again, these attacks were conducted without congressional support. The decision triggered intense bipartisan backlash and concerns about escalation without oversight.

    While such attacks are not without precedent – think back to former US President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya or Joe Biden’s targeting of terrorist assets – the scale and veracity of Trump’s attacks on the Middle East are much more useful as a framework to understanding the recent attacks on Iran than any reference to the 2003 Iraq war.

    What this reveals about Trump

    It is crucial to scrutinise any use of force. But while comparing the 2025 Iran strikes to Iraq in 2003 may be rhetorically powerful, it is analytically weak.

    A better path is to situate these events within Trump’s broader political style.

    He acts unilaterally and with near-complete impunity, disregarding traditional constraints and operating outside established norms and oversight.

    This is just as true for attacks on foreign adversaries as it is for the domestic policy arena.

    For example, Trump recently empowered agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate with sweeping discretion in immigration enforcement, bypassing legal and judicial oversight.

    Trump also uses policy as spectacle, designed to send shockwaves through the domestic or foreign arenas and project dominance to both friend and foe.

    In this way, Trump’s dramatic attacks on Iran have some parallels to his unilateral imposition of tariffs on international trade. Both are abrupt, disruptive and framed as a demonstration of strength rather than a way to create a mutually beneficial solution.

    Finally, Trump is more than willing to use force as an instrument of power rather than as a last resort. This is just as true for Iran as it is for the US people.

    The recent deployment of US Marines to quell protests in Los Angeles reveals a similar impulse: military intervention as a first instinct in the absence of a broader strategy to foster peace.

    To truly understand and respond to Trump’s Iran strikes, we need to move beyond sensationalist analogies and recognise a more dangerous reality. This is not the start of another Iraq; it’s the continuation of a presidency defined by impulsive power, unchecked force and a growing disdain for democratic constraint.

    Benjamin Isakhan receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of Government policy.

    – ref. Hauntingly familiar? Why comparing the US strikes on Iran to Iraq in 2003 is off target – https://theconversation.com/hauntingly-familiar-why-comparing-the-us-strikes-on-iran-to-iraq-in-2003-is-off-target-259668

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    Amir Levy/Getty Images

    After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades.

    Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach.

    If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict.

    As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains.

    What did each side gain?

    The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself.

    This was made possible largely due to Israel’s success over the past two years in weakening Iran’s regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria.

    Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high.

    Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran’s primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

    Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact.

    Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran’s missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump’s pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment.

    Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel’s attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel.

    While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries.

    Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities.

    Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues.

    As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy’s will and capacity to resist.

    While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium.

    Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran’s nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity.

    Sticking point over Iran’s nuclear program

    Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability.

    That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.)

    Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%.

    Trump declared Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “totally obliterated”, whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran’s facilities was “very significant”.

    However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame.

    And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program appear slimmer than ever.

    What might future deterrence look like?

    The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward.

    For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran’s leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia.

    As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially.

    At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters.

    Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran’s nuclear program.

    In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran’s nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary.

    Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking – https://theconversation.com/will-the-fragile-ceasefire-between-iran-and-israel-hold-one-factor-could-be-crucial-to-it-sticking-259669

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: June 24th, 2025 Heinrich Slams Trump Administration’s Decision to Rescind Roadless Rule That Strips Protections of Millions of Acres of America’s National Forests

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich

    WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the following statement on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins’ efforts to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, also known as the Roadless Rule, established during the Clinton Administration to protect over 58 million acres of public lands administered by the Forest Service.

    “Once again, the Trump Administration is putting special interests first by torching protections for our national forests. Rolling back the Roadless Rule will make millions of acres vulnerable to destructive wildfires, carve up wildlife habitat, degrade opportunities for recreation, and threaten the headwaters our communities rely on,” said Heinrich. “More than 80 percent of wildfires are started by humans within a half mile of a road – but now Trump is pretending that this rollback is necessary for fire prevention. This is nothing more than a reckless giveaway to private interests that puts lives and our lands at risk.” 

    See the map of New Mexico’s inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Questions Military Leadership On Middle East Readiness, GOP Budget Tactics

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

    WASHINGTON — During a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing today entitled, “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Navy,” U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) pressed top military officials on Middle East operations and partisan budget maneuvers. The witnesses included Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan, Commandant of the Marine Corps General Eric M. Smith, and Acting Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James W. Kilby.

    Addressing the current situation in the Middle East, Senator Schatz began, “President Trump’s decision to strike Iran was impetuous. He conducted strikes without seeking Congressional authorization, and it endangered service members stationed throughout the region. Iran’s barrage of missile attacks on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar demonstrated that. The announcement of a ceasefire is good news, but now we need an actual ceasefire, and it is on all parties to arrive at that conclusion this unnecessary 12-day conflict.”

    Schatz then raised concerns about the readiness of U.S. forces amid shifting global threats, citing examples of multiple carrier strike groups rerouting from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East and stressing the importance of replacing munitions expended by the U.S. to defend Israel to ensure that the U.S. can continue to deter future threats and protect its partners.

    Turning to the Navy and Marine Corps budget request, Schatz noted that the FY26 request, which Republicans have tied to their budget reconciliation efforts, fell $8 billion short of the FY25 continuing resolution (CR), saying, “Failing to address the current shortfalls caused by the CR means that the Navy will not be able to successfully deter the threats posed by China. Reconciliation is not a responsible way to do spending, as Senator McConnell, the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee said, using extraordinary parliamentary authorities does not sustain the Department of Defense. The Department’s ability to take care of our service members should not be contingent on whether Congress passes an unrelated package of tax cuts and health care cuts.”

    He urged Republicans to pursue bipartisan cooperation through the regular appropriations process, saying, “Historically, the things that go in a reconciliation package are the things that can’t pass on a bipartisan basis… The model in this modern Senate, which is, granted, different from the Senate of 10 years ago and 30 years ago and so on, but the model has been that you explore bipartisanship, you explore achieving cloture, and making this committee relevant and important and a sort of center of power in the Article One branch, and if you fail, then you have these extraordinary authorities to go elsewhere. But to go elsewhere before you even try to cut a deal with Democrats, who are saying, ‘We’d like to cut a deal’ may not be the wisest course of action.”

    Video of the exchange is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for June 25, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 25, 2025.

    Bats get fat to survive hard times. But climate change is threatening their survival strategy
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wu, Lecturer in Wildlife Ecology, Murdoch University Rudmer Zwerver/Shutterstock Bats are often cast as the unseen night-time stewards of nature, flitting through the dark to control pest insects, pollinate plants and disperse seeds. But behind their silent contributions lies a remarkable and underappreciated survival strategy: seasonal

    Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state. After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague,

    Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ciprian N. Radavoi, Associate Professor in Law, University of Southern Queensland Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel ahead of a game in 2016. Michael Zagaris/San Francisco 49ers/Getty Images It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started

    Nearly half of Kiwis oppose automatic citizenship for Cook Islands, says poll
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist A new poll by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows that almost half of respondents oppose the Cook Islands having automatic New Zealand citizenship. Thirty percent of the 1000-person sample supported Cook Islanders retaining citizenship, 46 percent were opposed and 24 percent were unsure. The question asked: The Cook

    Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders discuss Middle East conflict before ceasefire
    RNZ Pacific Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says the Middle East conflict was one of the discussions of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in Suva this week — and Pacific leaders “took note of what is happening”. The Post-Courier reports Marape saying the “12 Day War” between Israel and Iran was based on

    The ancients also had to deal with a cost-of-living crisis. Here’s how they managed
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia Louis Le Brun, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY Talk to anyone today, and they will probably have something to say about how expensive life has become. While the rate of inflation has

    Video games can help trans players feel seen and safe. It all starts with design
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Toups Dugas, Associate Professor of Human-Centred Computing, Monash University Shano Liang There is a comfort in finding and being yourself. Video games offer opportunities for this comfort. They allow people to exist in safe spaces, to develop community, and to explore the self – as well

    How old are you really? Are the latest ‘biological age’ tests all they’re cracked up to be?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University We all like to imagine we’re ageing well. Now a simple blood or saliva test promises to tell us by measuring our “biological age”. And then, as many have done, we can share how “young” we really are on social

    Global rankings fuel hype, but students have more to consider when choosing a uni
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Message, Professor of Public Humanities and Director of the ANU Humanities Research Centre, Australian National University At this time of year, many year 12 students are seriously turning their minds to the future. Should they go to university next year? If so, which one? June is

    Playful or harmful? David Seymour’s posts raise questions about what’s OK to say online
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Veale, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being “playful” and

    Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien accepts invitation to government’s economic roundtable
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal opposition has accepted an invitation from Treasurer Jim Chalmers for shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien to attend the August economic roundtable. The acceptance contrasts with the position taken by former opposition leader Peter Dutton last term. He refused to

    Fiji advocacy group slams Indonesian role in MSG as a ‘disgrace’
    Asia Pacific Report A Fiji-based advocacy group has condemned the participation of Indonesia in the Melanesian Spearhead Group which is meeting in Suva this week, saying it is a “profound disgrace” that the Indonesian Embassy continues to “operate freely” within the the MSG Secretariat. “This presence blatantly undermines the core principles of justice and solidarity

    Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel

    Ramzy Baroud: The fallout – winners and losers from the Israeli war on Iran
    COMMENTARY: By Ramzy Baroud, editor of The Palestinian Chronicle The conflict between Israel and Iran over the past 12 days has redefined the regional chessboard. Here is a look at their key takeaways: Israel:Pulled in the US: Israel successfully drew the United States into a direct military confrontation with Iran, setting a significant precedent for

    Iran and Israel agree to a fragile ceasefire. One factor could be crucial to it sticking
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University Amir Levy/Getty Images After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel

    eSafety boss wants YouTube included in the social media ban. But AI raises even more concerns for kids
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University Irina WS/Shutterstock Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, today addressed the National Press Club to outline how her office will be driving the Social Media Minimum Age Bill when it comes into effect in December this year. The bill,

    Trouble getting out of bed? Signs the ‘winter blues’ may be something more serious
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology Justin Paget/Getty Winter is here. As the days grow shorter and the skies turn darker, you might start to feel a bit “off”. You may notice a dip in your mood or energy levels.

    A carbon levy on global shipping promises to slash emissions. We calculated what that means for Australia’s biggest export
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Brear, Director, Melbourne Energy Institute, The University of Melbourne Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Moving people and things around the world by sea has a big climate impact. The shipping industry produces almost 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions – roughly the same as Germany – largely

    The war won’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it will drive it underground, following North Korea’s model
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW Sydney The United States’ and Israel’s strikes on Iran are concerning, and not just for the questionable legal justifications provided by both governments. Even if their attacks cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, this will only

    Iran’s internet blackout left people in the dark. How does a country shut down the internet?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Senior Lecturer of Computing and Security, Edith Cowan University Dylan Carr/Unsplash In recent days, Iranians experienced a near-complete internet blackout, with local service providers – including mobile services – repeatedly going offline. Iran’s government has cited cyber security concerns for ordering the shutdown. Shutting off

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –