Remarks by President Biden on the Unites States' Response to Hamas's Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia's Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine | The White House

Campbell, who’s had a hand in virtually all Asia policy under Biden, could make competition with China a bigger part of State’s focus.

Two of the people familiar with the decision said Kurt Campbell is nearing the end of his vetting process. | Pool photo by Kim Hong-Ji

10/19/2023 11:45 AM EDT

Joe Biden is preparing to nominate Kurt Campbell as the next deputy secretary of State, three people familiar with the decision said, elevating the architect of the president’s China and Indo-Pacific strategy to the nation’s second-highest diplomatic post.

Campbell’s frontrunner status has been known for weeks, after Biden asked the State Department’s top choice for the role, principal deputy national security adviser Jon Finer, to remain in his current position. Wendy Sherman, the administration’s first deputy secretary, retired in the summer.

Two of the people familiar with the decision said Campbell is nearing the end of his vetting process, and he’ll be formally nominated by the president once the review is completed successfully, as expected. But given a severe bottleneck in the Senate for confirmations, it’s unclear when he’ll get a hearing or even a vote.

Spokespeople for the National Security Council and State Department didn’t respond to requests for comment. Campbell didn’t immediately offer comment about his forthcoming nomination.

Campbell, the National Security Council coordinator for the Indo-Pacific, has had a hand in virtually everything the Biden administration has done on Asia policy. The nuclear submarine deal with the U.K. and Australia known as AUKUS was his brainchild, and he quietly worked to make it a reality, keeping the development away from many colleagues who were surprised by the deal’s formal announcement.

France, whose own submarine deal with Australia was sidelined by AUKUS, was also caught off guard, and Paris’ anger led to a diplomatic kerfuffle that Campbell’s Europe-focused colleagues had to quash.

That work, and other initiatives, stem from Campbell’s efforts during the Obama administration to “pivot to Asia.” This included sending more U.S. troops to the region, strengthening ties with regional allies, growing partnerships with less friendly countries wary of China and taking a harder line on Beijing. Multiple U.S. officials say that the administration’s current approach toward China and the region writ large was devised by Campbell.

U.S. policy toward China should “seek to achieve not a definitive end state akin to the Cold War’s ultimate conclusion but a steady state of clear-eyed coexistence on terms favorable to U.S. interests and values,” he wrote in a 2019 Foreign Affairs article with Jake Sullivan, now the national security adviser, titled “Competition Without Catastrophe.”

“Coexistence means accepting competition as a condition to be managed rather than a problem to be solved.”

One of the people familiar with Campbell’s potential move said he may use the job to further centralize U.S. competition with China in the State Department’s work.

The Biden administration took office with the goal of taking Beijing on in multiple arenas while avoiding war, but it has faced other pressing challenges demanding senior-level attention, namely Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and now the Israel-Hamas war.

An outstanding question of Campbell’s move is what happens to Victoria Nuland, the acting deputy secretary who was also in line for the post. Nuland did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

POLITICO

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-world-without-american-deterrence-war-hamas-israel-north-korea-china-russia-iran-9935394?utm

4. 'The CIA dropped the ball here': Hacker hijacked the CIA's secure contact link for Russian informants due to Twitter flaw

From Twitter to a secure link for Russian informant list? What is going on?

Of course we have to ask, is this an accurate report?

But this reminds me of an NSA brief I received in the 1990s when we lay people first started thinking about hacking. They lamented that everyone wanted to be an "offensive hacker" and few wanted to work on cyber defense and protecting our own networks. Perhaps we still have not changed that culture and we do not invest enough time, resources, and effort in cyber defense.

'The CIA dropped the ball here': Hacker hijacked the CIA's secure contact link for Russian informants due to Twitter flaw

Twitter change meant informants' information could be hijacked
'Pro-CIA patriot' hacker directed them to his own channel
READ MORE: Hacker leaks four million 23andMe DNA profiles

By ROB WAUGH TECH CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 14:50 EDT, 19 October 2023 | UPDATED: 16:27 EDT, 19 October 2023

Daily Mail · by Rob Waugh Tech Correspondent For Dailymail.Com · October 19, 2023

An American hacker was able to use a glitch on the CIA's X account (formerly known as Twitter) to direct potential informants to his own Telegram channel.

The link on the CIA's Twitter channel offers informants ways to covertly contact the agency - and large amounts of the text is in Russian, to enable people within the country to contact the CIA.

Kevin McSheehan, 37, said that he noticed that the Telegram link on the X page could be hijacked, and redirected it to his own channel to prevent hostile nations exploiting the link.

McSheehan, who describes himself as a 'pro-CIA patriot' told the BBC, 'My immediate thought was panic.

'I saw that the official Telegram link they were sharing could be hijacked - and my biggest fear was that a country like Russia, China, or North Korea could easily intercept Western intelligence.

'The CIA really dropped the ball here.'

A hacker was able to divert people to his own Telegram channel

McSheehan is a so-called 'white hat' or ethical hacker, who uses skills similar to a criminal hacker to prevent data breaches.

The CIA's X account displayed a link to a Telegram channel, but due to the way X displays links, it linked to an unclaimed Telegram username instead.

McSheehan noticed the issue, which had appeared some time after September 27, and registered the username himself.

That meant that anyone clicking on the link was directed to McSheehan's own channel - where he warned them not to share any sensitive information.

McSheehan told the BBC, 'I did it as a security precaution.

'It's a problem with the X site that I've seen before - but I was amazed to see the CIA hadn't noticed.'

The CIA's X page, which has 3.4 million followers, has one link on it, to secure ways to contact the organization.

The most prominent of these is the Telegram channel - which was open to be hijacked for several days at least.

The link at the bottom of the page had been truncated (CIA/X)

The page said, 'At CIA, we have a solemn duty to protect those who work with us around the world. If you're reaching out to CIA to share information about Russia, please do so securely via our portal on the dark web.

'When possible, CIA has verified its social media accounts through each platform's official process. This is CIA's official Telegram channel.'

The link was automatically truncated to t.me/s/SecurelyCont - which meant that anyone who registered the account SecurelyCont could hijack the traffic.

McSheehan linked it to a channel which said, 'THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL CIA CHANNEL — DO NOT SHARE SENSITIVE INFORMATION WITH ANYONE.'

It repeated the information in Cyrillic.

The CIA's headquarters in Langley Virginia

Speaking to Motherboard, the Maine-based security researcher said, 'I was motivated by National Security

'I assumed that it was a very recent mistake and that a bad actor was going to capitalize on it at any minute. I didn't even need to think—I just locked it down. I appointed myself the gig on the spot. I'm patriotic, very pro-CIA and have a documented history of whitehatting.'

McSheehan blamed technical changes at X (formerly Twitter) for the issue.

He said, 'The CIA is solid. X has been buggy for months with links, text formatting, etc,. Blame really can't be placed on the CIA. Did they drop the ball? Yes kind of—but everyone drops the ball sometimes.'

The issue was rapidly rectified after it was mentioned in media reports, but the CIA has not commented.

Daily Mail · by Rob Waugh Tech Correspondent For Dailymail.Com · October 19, 2023

5. A World Without American Deterrence

As Sir Lawrence Freedman says, "Deterrence works. Until it doesn't."

A World Without American Deterrence

A gradual retreat into strategic passivity led to the world’s spinning suddenly out of control.

By Walter Russell Mead

Oct. 19, 2023 12:33 pm ET

President Biden pauses during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the war with Hamas in Israel, Oct. 18. PHOTO: MIRIAM ALSTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS

‘How did you go bankrupt?” Bill Gorton asks Mike Campbell in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises.”

“Two ways,” Mike replies. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

Suddenly, the Biden administration faces a massive and complicated crisis in the Middle East. Missiles and warplanes streak across the skies above Gaza. Saudi Arabia bitterly criticizes Israel’s response to the Hamas atrocities, and much of the Arab and Islamic world has exploded in rage against the Jewish state. Mobs rampage through the streets, and American diplomats take shelter amid protests outside U.S. embassies from Baghdad to Beirut. Iran threatens Israel with more attacks, and Hezbollah is keeping pressure on Israel’s northern border.

President Biden’s decision to fly to Israel showed energy and courage. But more is needed. As I wrote in my last column, Mr. Biden has yet to grapple with the painful truth that America’s core problem in the Middle East is the march of an unappeasable Iran toward regional power regardless of moral or human cost.

That is not the only thing Mr. Biden and his team don’t seem to have grasped. The Middle East firestorm is merely one hot spot in a world spinning out of control. The success of Hamas sent waves of excitement through jihadist groups and terror cells in Africa, Europe, the Middle East and beyond. Riots in France, a shooting in Belgium, anti-Semitic marches in Berlin and other uprisings across Europe point to a resurgence of radicalism. Africa, where feeble governments have lost the ability to control jihadist groups across swaths of territory, and where Russia’s Wagner Group supports many corrupt and violent military regimes, is bracing for more terror in more parts of the continent. The war on terror is plotting its comeback even as the Cold War between the U.S. and the revisionist powers heats up.

As Hamas put a torch to the Middle East, Russia’s Legislature revoked its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and ended limits on missile technology sales to Iran. Mysterious disruptions to a gas pipeline and telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea continue.

Flying to Beijing, President Vladimir Putin toasted the growing friendship between Russia and China and celebrated a historic high in their bilateral trade. Trade between the two countries has roughly doubled since Mr. Putin’s original 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

Trade between Russia and North Korea also has flourished. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said last week that North Korea has delivered more than 1,000 containers of military supplies and weapons to Russia. What does Pyongyang want in return? “Fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, armored vehicles, ballistic-missile production equipment, or other materials and other advanced technologies,” Mr. Kirby said. With Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov currently visiting North Korea, he and his hosts will have plenty to talk about.

China is also getting frisky. In the past two years, there have been more than 180 documented cases of People’s Liberation Army planes harassing American aircraft, the Pentagon said this week. That exceeds the number of such incidents in the entire preceding decade. More ominously, China’s pressure on Taiwan continues to grow. The number of Chinese military aircraft flying sorties into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone rose from 380 in 2020 to more than 1,700 in 2022. China has also increased the number of fighter jets and bombers (including bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons) venturing close to the island. On one day last month, more than 100 Chinese military aircraft flew missions near Taiwan, with 40 entering the air defense identification zone.

Why are so many actors challenging American power in so many parts of the world? Because the U.S. is losing its power to deter. Like Mike Campbell’s bankruptcy, the erosion of deterrence usually begins gradually and ends suddenly. Emboldened by American failures to respond effectively (as when Mr. Putin invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, when President Obama failed to enforce his “red line” in Syria, or when China built and militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea), our adversaries gradually lost their inhibitions and dared to challenge us more directly in more damaging ways.

Mr. Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine in defiance of direct American warnings was a major step. Iran’s support for Hamas’s strike on Israel is an even bolder attack on the American order. If President Biden’s response to Hamas and its patron Iran fails to restore respect for American power, wisdom and will, our enemies everywhere will draw conclusions and take steps that we and our allies won’t like.

As Mr. Biden analyzes his options and the support he is prepared to offer Israel, he needs to remember that the world is watching. Strategic passivity as deterrence erodes is a recipe for escalating crises and, ultimately and sometimes quite suddenly, war.

WSJ Opinion: Joe Biden's First Week with the Israel-Hamas War

River Crossings, ATACMS, Cauldrons, Stalled Breaches: Ukraine's Battlefield Tips Into A New Phase

rferl.org · October 18, 2023

Ukraine

Flares from a Russian helicopter appear to shoot out after what was reportedly a Ukrainian strike on Berdyansk air base on October 17 with U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles.

The predawn skies over the outskirts of the Ukrainian port of Berdyansk lit up in oranges and reds from fires and explosions at an airfield where Russian Kh-52 and Mi-24 helicopters, used for targeting Ukrainian armor trying to breach Russian lines 120 kilometers to the north, were parked.

Around 18 hours later, the attack, documented in expletive-filled videos published on Telegram, was confirmed to be what Russian war bloggers had suspected: Ukraine used secretly supplied U.S. long-range missiles known as ATACMS to target a squadron of attack helicopters, damaging or destroying as many as nine.

It wasn't the only bad news Russia received this week; about 220 kilometers to the northeast, a major offensive aimed at encircling Ukrainian forces in the industrial city of Avdiyivka was on the verge of faltering, or at least progressing far more slowly than commanders likely had anticipated.

Now in its 20th month, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is approaching its second winter, shifting again into a new phase with no clear indication that either side has the upper hand.

Whether the Avdiyivka offensive or the Ukrainian surprise strike at Berdyansk or a reported Dnieper River crossing by Ukrainian marine infantry will change things is an open question.

What Happened At Berdyansk?

For more than a year, Ukrainian officials have been begging the United States -- which has sent more than $62 billion in weaponry and other military equipment -- to supply precision, long-range missiles known as Army Tactical Missile System.

The missiles, known as ATACMS and better known by the shorthand pronounced "attack 'ems," are a long-range weapon, fired from another U.S.-supplied weapon: the multiple rocket-launch system known as HIMARS. Costing around $1.5 million apiece, ATACMS have a range of up to 520 kilometers, which enables Ukraine to hit targets deep behind Russian lines.

U.S. officials were reluctant to send them, however, fearing Russia would view the move as escalatory.

In late August, U.S. news reports said the White House had finally approved delivery of the missiles. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon ever confirmed delivery of the missiles.

An ATACMS Army Tactical Missile System being launched. (file photo)

Sometime after midnight on October 17, a series of explosions erupted at the Russian-controlled Berdyansk airfield. Among several videos posted to Telegram, one purported to show antiaircraft defenses firing above an airfield; another includes a profanity-filled Russian rant that specifically mentions the helicopters based at the field.

There's no way to verify the videos, and as of midafternoon on October 18, no evidence had emerged to indicate how many helicopters had been hit.

But the information about the attack itself was later corroborated in part by posts by Russian bloggers, and announcements by Ukrainian officials, who claimed that nine Russian helicopters were damaged or destroyed. Other images later posted to Telegram appeared to show U.S.-supplied cluster-type munitions that would be delivered, a variation of the ATACMS missile that has a shorter range.

Russia's Defense Ministry has made no comment on the attack.

The extent to which the arrival of ATACMS missiles will change the battlefield is unclear. At the very least, experts say, Russia will be forced to move its helicopters or ammunition depots or field headquarters much further away from the front lines.

The ATACMS "will likely prompt the Russian command to disperse aviation assets and withdraw some aircraft to airfields further from the front line," the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War said on October 17. The missiles also pose "a significant threat to Russian ammunition depots in rear areas and will likely force the Russian command to choose between fortifying existing depots or further dispersing depots throughout occupied Ukraine."

Resupplying, or rotating, troops fighting in grueling trench warfare will be more difficult and take longer. Russia has been able to use attack helicopters to great effect; flying low to avoid air defenses, then popping up above tree lines, firing precision tank-killing missiles, then escaping antiaircraft missiles.

Still, if the Ukrainian estimate for the number of helicopters damaged or destroyed at Berdyansk is correct, it would be one of the biggest aviation losses for Russia since the start of the invasion.

A River Runs Through It

Last year, Ukrainian forces pulled off two significant battlefield advances. One, in the northeastern Kharkiv region, surprised Russian troops there, forcing them to withdraw to a line east of the Oskil River, a north-south waterway and natural defense.

To the southwest, Ukrainian troops pummeled Russian paratroopers and other units on the western banks of the Dnieper River, ultimately forcing them to withdraw across the river.

Since then, Russia has continued to pound cities and towns across the river with artillery and missiles. In June, a Dnieper River dam under Russian control at Nova Kakhovka was destroyed under not-fully-clear circumstances, flooding thousands of hectares downstream and causing widespread damage.

In the time since Russia's Kherson withdrawal, Ukrainian special forces and reconnaissance units have made repeated forays across the river and further downstream at the river's mouth, the Dniprovska Gulf.

Early on October 18, two closely watched Russian war bloggers reported that troops from Ukraine's 35th and 36th Marine Infantry Brigades had crossed the Dnieper, about 8 kilometers upriver from the now-destroyed Antonivskiy Bridge, in Kherson city. One report said units reached the village of Pishchanivka, about 2 kilometers southeast of the riverbank.

"The very fact of the presence of Ukraine's armed forces on our shore is not news," one blogger known as Two Majors wrote on October 18. "However, the movement of reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and communications systems to the front line of defense is a clear sign."

Early in the afternoon on October 18, Russia's Defense Ministry appeared to corroborate the reports of a river crossing, saying, "the actions of four sabotage and reconnaissance groups were suppressed in the areas of two settlements adjacent to Pishchanivka."

A few hours later, however, there were reports that Ukrainian forces were still holding off Russian troops outside of the village.

What's Going On At Avdiyivka?

Russia launched a major offensive around the industrial city of Avdiyivka, northwest of Donetsk, on October 10, sending in several thousand troops and a sizable number of armored vehicles in two directions, in another effort to create a "cauldron" to encircle Ukrainian forces.

It's the biggest single concentrated push by Russian forces since at least February, when a large contingent of Russian units was decimated -- as many as 130 tanks and armored vehicles -- near Vuhledar, a town 60 kilometers southwest of Donetsk.

"I can definitely say that this is the largest offensive that has taken place in Avdiyivka throughout the entire war, beginning since 2014," Vitaliy Barabash, the head of the city's military administration, said on October 18.

Ukraine's stubborn hold on Avdiyivka has allowed it to threaten Russian lines to the east, and parts of Donetsk's outskirts; Russia has made several efforts to take it back.

As of October 18, reporting by Ukrainian officials and Russian military bloggers alike has pointed to a slowing tempo by Russian forces in pressing Ukrainian lines, either because Russian losses were too great or for other reasons not clear.

"This is not the end. The enemy is regrouping, and for three nights in a row is pulling equipment deeper to the rear for repairs," Barabash said.

Konrad Muzyka, a Polish-based military analyst, said in a report on October 13 that as many 40 Russian vehicles and other pieces of equipment may have been damaged or destroyed.

"The attack on the city is the epitome of the Russian Ground Forces as an organization, which is inherently unable to adjust, learn from past mistakes, disorganized and where the mission command is heavy-handed, leaving little initiative to junior commanders," Muzyka wrote in an October 13 report.

Breach, But No Breakthrough

In early June, around the same time as the Nova Kakhovka dam collapse, Ukraine launched a major counteroffensive in three locations along the 1,200-kilometer front line that stretches from the Kherson region in the southwest, to the Kharkiv region in the northeast.

The most concentrated effort focused on the southern Zaporizhzhya region, with Ukrainian forces pushing south from the town of Orikhiv, in hopes of reaching the cities of Melitopol and Berdyansk. That would allow Ukraine to cut off the "land bridge" -- the overland road and train routes connecting Crimea to Russia.

That effort, however, ground to a near halt in the opening weeks, as Ukrainian troops encountered formidable, triple-layered Russian defenses dubbed the Surovikin Line, named for the Russian general who ordered their construction.

Ukraine retooled its tactics and in early September, units managed to breach one, possibly two layers of the Surovikin Line, near the towns of Robotyne and Verbove, spurring hopes of a wider breakthrough.

That didn't happen, and Russia redeployed some of its best-trained airborne units to help fortify Russian lines and slow the push by Ukrainian advances.

With the onset of wet autumn weather, then cold winter temperatures, it's unclear how much progress Ukraine will be able to make before spring.

rferl.org · October 18, 2023

7. The Humility of Israel's Intel Failure: Not One Source Penetrated Hamas

No vetted sources by any of these intelligence organizations? What can we learn from Hamas' counterintelligence capabilities and OPSEC?

Conclusion:

Though the U.S. intelligence community reported the potential for violence before Hamas attacked, those may have been somewhat “routine” reports about a general level of violence. And if that’s the case, how is it possible that Shin Bet, the Jordanian GID, or even the CIA had not recruited a single vetted and trusted source from the pool of thousands? Think about that — the power of one, a source who might have prevented cataclysmic events. That is the key question, as the intel services examine their failure: How could we not have penetrated this terrorist army with just one single human source?

The Humility of Israel's Intel Failure: Not One Source Penetrated Hamas

Published 10/19/23 06:00 AM ET

Marc Polymeropoulos

themessenger.com · October 19, 2023

What is the cost of an intelligence failure? In the Middle East today, the scorecard is shockingly clear: 30 Americans, at least 1,400 Israelis, and more than 3,000 Palestinians dead. A humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is in the making. And the entire region is a tinderbox, on the brink of erupting. Historians will study the costs of the intelligence failure that enabled Hamas to carry out a devastating surprise attack on Israel. Similar to 9/11 — which cost the U.S. thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in a two-decade war in South Asia — the reverberations in the Middle East will be profound. The region no doubt will be a very different place in the months and years ahead.

Intelligence is a nation’s first line of defense. That was our mantra at the CIA, as we sent officers with linguistic and cultural expertise to far-off lands to report back to Washington. One critical goal of a field intelligence officer is to recruit sources who provide indicators and warnings. Intelligence doesn’t make policy but it informs decision-making, particularly in crisis situations. Policymakers hate to be surprised. When I served overseas, I always told senior U.S. officials, such as an ambassador or military commander, that I would ensure they’d be in the best possible position to understand events on the ground. That was my writ: No surprises.

The Israeli and U.S. intelligence communities — in fact, all the region’s intel services — did not live up to the mantra of avoiding surprise. I expect that since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, many awkward conversations have occurred between intelligence chiefs and their political leaders, from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence heading in to see President Biden, to the ShinBet chief at the first briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate chief calling on King Abdullah. These conversations would start with a question, “What happened?” and, “How did we miss this?”

Humility is the notion that sometimes we do make mistakes. We must own up to them, and then we can determine how best to fix things. I am not privy to my former classified world, but I sense that the after-action reviews will be brutal. From Israel’s overreliance on technology such as a border fence and sensors, to the U.S. likely ceding the Hamas target to Israel because of other priorities in counterterrorism, the forensics will lay bare what occurred. Humility is the best response after such an event. Of note, on Monday, Shin Bet Director Ronan Bar released a remarkable statement to his workforce, acknowledging personal responsibility for his service’s failure to uncover and thwart the attack.

Ten Shin Bet personnel have been killed battling Hamas terrorists, which undoubtedly compounded the pain felt by Israeli intelligence personnel. Bar’s statement shows he understands the principles of leadership and accountability; it remains to be seen if others in his government and other regional intelligence chiefs will follow suit.

This leads me to my final point: Human intelligence — the recruitment of spies and, in this case, a penetration of Hamas — seems to have been neglected. A single source can change the course of history. That is a dramatic statement, but that is often what I tell college students when I lecture on national security and the intelligence community. The “Power of One” means that a single, properly placed and vetted source can provide information of immense value — a pending weapons transfer, perhaps, or knowledge that a country may invade, or, in many cases, that a terrorist group is poised to attack.

The cultivation of a source can take months or years. It is difficult as well as time-consuming. The juice is worth the squeeze, however. Human intelligence is different from all other collection disciplines. A source can provide context on plans and intentions that knits together the data collected from intercepts or imagery. A source can be debriefed, tasked, and then sent out to elicit more information. A source can report the details of a meeting and have sidebar conversations with participants. They can observe and collect classified documents. Sources are the tip of the spear, burrowing into places we cannot enter and obtaining the nuggets that cannot be found in other ways.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confers with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, during their meeting with President Joe Biden (L) in Tel Aviv on Oct. 18, 2023, amid ongoing battles between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.MIRIAM ALSTER/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Where were the region’s intel sources on Hamas? Surely Hamas practiced operational security when planning this operation. As we used to say at the CIA, “the enemy gets a vote” — and the Hamas counterintelligence practices certainly have improved over time. But Hamas is not the East German Stasi, the legendary spy service that suspected each German citizen of treason. So, was there a pool of potential agent-candidates for the region’s intelligence services to tap? This wasn’t a small cell that carried out the attack on Israel. Hamas trained, equipped, mobilized, deployed and carried out a multi-domain attack using up to 2,000 operatives; foot soldiers, operational commanders, and leadership were involved. With its patrons in Iran likely also involved, this was an operational footprint so massive that we can call this a “terrorist army.”

Though the U.S. intelligence community reported the potential for violence before Hamas attacked, those may have been somewhat “routine” reports about a general level of violence. And if that’s the case, how is it possible that Shin Bet, the Jordanian GID, or even the CIA had not recruited a single vetted and trusted source from the pool of thousands? Think about that — the power of one, a source who might have prevented cataclysmic events. That is the key question, as the intel services examine their failure: How could we not have penetrated this terrorist army with just one single human source?

Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA Senior Intelligence Service official, is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

themessenger.com · October 19, 2023

8. 'American Leadership Is What Holds the World Together': Biden Makes Case to Nation for Major Israel, Ukraine Aid Package

'American Leadership Is What Holds the World Together': Biden Makes Case to Nation for Major Israel, Ukraine Aid Package

Published 10/19/23 08:33 PM ET|Updated 8 hr ago

Rebecca Morin

themessenger.com · October 20, 2023

President Joe Biden urged Americans to support aiding Israel and Ukraine in a primetime address Thursday, connecting the wars in both countries as critical to protecting democracy around the globe and the United States’ national security.

Biden said the world is "facing an inflection point in history," making the case that the U.S. had a duty to help fight against terrorist organization Hamas' attacks on Israel and Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

“American leadership is what holds the world together," Biden said in the second Oval Office address of his presidency. “Hamas and Putin represent different threats. But they share this in common: They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy, completely annihilate it.”

Biden said in the roughly 15-minute address that he will send an “urgent budget request” to Congress on Friday, which he said will help keep American “troops out of harm's way.” The total aid package is expected to cost upwards of $100 billion and to also include funding for Taiwan and U.S.-Mexico border security.

While the speech came just 12 days after Hamas' attack on Israel, the president also underscored that the U.S. cannot walk away from Ukraine nearly 20 months after Russia's invasion because it could embolden other countries to take similar action.

“What would happen if we walked away?" Biden said of Ukraine. "We are the essential nation."

Biden’s first Oval Office speech in early June after Congress passed bipartisan budget legislation to avoid the country defaulting on its debt.

The president's Thursday evening address came a day after he traveled to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet. During the trip, Biden announced that Israel had agreed to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and that the U.S. was sending $100 million in assistance to Gaza and the West Bank.

US President Joe BidenJONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, which left 1,400 people dead, including at least 32 Americans. Some Americans are also being held hostage by Hamas. At least 3,785 Palestinians have died following Israel’s ongoing bombing of Gaza. Thousands more are attempting to flee Gaza amid the violence, creating a humanitarian crisis.

The president secured an agreement Wednesday from Egypt to allow up to 20 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza amid Israel's conflict with Hamas. But Biden warned that the aid will stop if Hamas tampered with the aid.

The Biden administration has been sending aid to Ukraine since the country was invaded by Russia in February 2022. Ahead of his speech, Biden spoke over the phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reaffirm U.S. support.

Biden made a surprise visit to Ukraine in February 2023, where he met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv and announced a military aid package.

"I'm told I was the first American [president] to enter a war zone not controlled by the United States military since President Lincoln," Biden said during his Oval Office address.

The president also denounced antisemitism and Islamophobia rising following the war in Israel.

"We must, without equivocation, denounce antisemitism. We must also without equivocation, denounce Islamophobia," Biden said. "To all of you hurting, those of you hurting, I want you to know: I see you. You belong. And I want to say this to you: You're all America. You're all America."

He again condemn the killing of six-year-old Palestinian American Wadea Al-Fayoume in an alleged hate crime.

"His name was Wadea," Biden said. "A proud American, a proud Palestinian American family."

The Biden administration will face an uphill battle securing passage for its funding request in Congress. The House of Representatives still lacks a speaker, meaning lawmakers cannot vote on legislation. A government shutdown once again looms, with funding set to run dry in less than a month. And some Republicans are opposed to providing more aid for Ukraine.

“We cannot let petty, partisan, angry politics get in the way of our responsibility as a great nation," Biden said. "We cannot and will not let terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin win. I refuse to let that happen."

themessenger.com · October 20, 2023

9. New Survey: Order and Disorder: Views of US Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World

A lot of data to parse. The EXSUM is pasted below.

The 46 page report can be downloaded here: http://egfound.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-Order-Disorder.pdf

New Survey: Order and Disorder

https://egfound.org/2023/10/vox-populi-order-and-disorder/?utm

Lucas Robinson, Mark Hannah, Zuri Linetsky | Oct 11, 2023

In a democracy, the voice of the people (“vox populi”) is supposed to be the voice of God (“vox dei”). In the United States, leaders are supposed to rely on the consent of the governed. Yet, within the realm of foreign policy, the popular will is not being reflected in the views of elected leaders and experts. Although public opinion can be capricious and grand strategies must be developed to withstand changing sentiments, a fundamental premise of this project is that policymakers must be sensitive and responsive to the wishes of their constituents.

This project seeks to (1) illustrate the chasm which exists between the interests and concerns of foreign policy elites and those of ordinary citizens, and (2) identify the reasons why Americans are increasingly disenfranchised from foreign policy decisions being made in Washington.

View the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 20 22 reports to see results from our past surveys of Americans’ foreign policy views.

ORDER & DISORDER

Views of US Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World

By Mark Hannah, Lucas Robinson, and Zuri Linetsky

Report Released October 2023

View Report as PDF

Executive Summary | Introduction | Who Took Our Survey? | Specific Findings | Methodology & Limitations

Executive Summary

As the 2024 presidential election nears, the Biden administration’s foreign policy choices and major global challenges — from the Russia-Ukraine war to China’s growing influence in Asia and beyond — will be increasingly scrutinized through a partisan lens. The Eurasia Group Foundation (EGF) conducted its sixth annual survey of Americans’ foreign policy views with this in mind. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of one thousand voting-age Americans about their views of America’s role in a turbulent world.

Americans generally support the Biden administration’s major foreign policy decisions

More people think the United States responded well to Russia’s war in Ukraine than did not — 43 percent vs. 26 percent. About a third hold a neutral opinion;
Two years after the president withdrew troops from Afghanistan, most people think the war will be remembered as a failed mission from the start (30%) or something which should have ended when Osama bin Laden was killed (32%);
Most Americans (77%) support pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran;

But on certain critical foreign policy topics, public support for US policy is tepid

As the Biden administration casts its support for Ukraine as an enduring commitment in defense of democracy itself, more Americans think the primary goal of the United States should be to avoid escalation or prevent Ukrainians’ suffering than defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity or democracy;
A majority of Americans (58%) think the United States should push for a negotiated settlement in the war in Ukraine, with many citing the war’s high cost in human lives;
More than twice as many people want the defense budget to decrease (34%) as support an increase (16%) — though half would maintain military spending at current levels;

Americans’ foreign policy views are marked by stark partisan divisions, and — in a challenge to President Biden as he courts swing voters — Independents align more with Republicans in crucial areas

The national security topics which most influence how Democrats vote are human rights and climate change. The topics which most influence Republicans are immigration and defense policy. The topics which most influence Independents are immigration and human rights;
Republicans and Independents are more likely to want to decrease than increase US engagement in collective security organizations such as the UN or NATO (33% to 23%, and 37% to 32% respectively). Democrats are four times as likely to want to increase as decrease such engagement (37% to 9%);
Almost twice as many Democrats support America’s response to the Russia-Ukraine war as Republicans and Independents;
Significantly more Democrats than Republican and Independents selected nuclear war with a great power like Russia among the top three threats facing the United States — 40 percent vs. 35 percent and 33 percent;
Democrats are much more supportive of Ukraine’s NATO ambitions than Republicans and Independents — 84 percent vs. 64 percent and 62 percent;
Republicans and Independents are about twice as likely as Democrats to list a potential war with a competitor like China among the top three threats facing the United States — 37 percent and 34 percent vs. 18 percent. It is ranked in the top two threats among Republicans and bottom two among Democrats;
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all tilt toward intervention in a hypothetical Chinese invasion of Taiwan — but Republicans are forty percent more likely than Democrats or Independents to “strongly support” a military operation;
Democrats differ from Republicans and Independents on the main goal of US foreign policy. Whereas a plurality of Democrats (38%) think America should promote democracy, pluralities of Republicans (43%) and Independents (37%) think the main goal is to protect against foreign threats;
On the issues of military spending and arms sales, however, Independents are more aligned with Democrats. Twice as many Independents and Democrats support a decrease in the defense budget as an increase. Republicans are about evenly split. Majorities of Democrats and Independents — but not Republicans — want to stop selling weapons abroad;

There are also several differences in foreign policy views between racial and age groups

The most important national security issues for Americans ages 18 to 29 are human rights and climate change. For older Americans, they are immigration and defense policy;
Nearly half (45%) of Americans ages 18 to 29 believe the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral — a view which becomes less common with age.
Fifty-eight percent of Black and 62 percent of Hispanic Americans think the United States should stop selling arms globally. White Americans, however, are split — 49 percent think the United States should stop.

Most Americans are committed to alliances, but many want European allies to do more and the United States less

When asked their views of NATO and America’s troop presence in Europe, Democrats primarily focus on the benefits — while Republicans and Independents focus on the burdens — of collective security;
Sixty-two percent of Americans think the United States should send troops to defend a NATO ally under attack, with a plurality (45%) citing the importance of America’s treaty obligations;
Even so, more than six times as many Americans want the United States to decrease (32%) or withdraw (17%) its troops from Europe as want it to increase (8%) its troop presence to better defend European allies. Nearly twice as many want to reduce (19%) or mostly withdraw (12%) US military presence in Asia as want to increase it (16%);
Roughly as many think adding more democracies to NATO protects US interests (37%) as are primarily concerned about NATO’s European members taking more responsibility for their own security (38%).

Back to Table of Contents

10. US troops overseas thwart multiple drone attacks in just days

US troops overseas thwart multiple drone attacks in just days

militarytimes.com · by Meghann Myers · October 19, 2023

Hours after news outlets first reported Thursday on two separate drone strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Syria, the Defense Department confirmed that the destroyer Carney shot down multiple missiles fired by Houthi insurgents in the Red Sea the same day.

The ship intercepted three cruise missiles and several drones, Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters during a briefing.

“We cannot say for certain what these missiles were targeting, but they were launched from Yemen, along the Red Sea, potentially towards targets in Israel,” he said. “This attack may be ongoing, so if we have more information to share, we will.”

Despite the increase in attacks following the strong messaging by the U.S. in support of Israel as it goes to war with Hamas, Ryder said the Pentagon is not considering the events related.

“Again, it’s important to separate these attacks from the current situation,” he said. “We’re going to continue to assess attribution on these ... but we’re also not going to overreact. We’re going to continue to do what we need to do and ensure regional stability, but at the same time supporting Israel.”

U.S. forces downed several more drones earlier this week, starting with three drones threatening forces in Iraq on Tuesday. One drone was destroyed and another damaged near al-Asad airbase in an attack resulting in minor injuries to coalition forces, Ryder said, and another unmanned device was downed at Bashur air base with no injuries.

“We are certainly taking appropriate force protection measures to ensure the safety of our troops,” Ryder said. “Again, I’m not going to get into specifics. Clearly, this is an uptick in terms of the types of drone activity we’ve seen in Iraq, in Syria.”

On Wednesday, troops destroyed one drone at al-Tanf garrison in Syria, while another detonated, causing minor injuries.

And that same morning, in Iraq, personnel at al-Asad sheltered after early warning systems detected another imminent strike.

“Though no attack occurred, a U.S. civilian contractor suffered a cardiac episode while sheltering and passed away shortly after,” Ryder said, offering condolences.

US launches Syria strikes after contractor killed, 5 troops wounded

A U.S. contractor died and six additional personnel were wounded in a Syria drone strike that inspired retaliatory strikes Thursday.

Strikes on bases with U.S. troops have been commonplace in recent years. An attack earlier this year that killed a U.S. contractor and injured five soldiers prompted the U.S. to strike back on facilities linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“These small scale attacks are clearly concerning and dangerous, right? And we’re ... weighing everything necessary to ensure that we’re protecting our forces,” Ryder said. “And if and when we choose to respond, we’ll do so at a time of our choosing.”

About Meghann Myers

Meghann Myers is the Pentagon bureau chief at Military Times. She covers operations, policy, personnel, leadership and other issues affecting service members.

11. White House removes photo that appears to show faces of U.S. special operators

Sigh.... But this is what happens when trying to operate at the speed of information. Communications teams must be aware of the necessary constraints and limitations to protect our forces while trying to get messages out.

White House removes photo that appears to show faces of U.S. special operators

The Defense Department typically does not publish photographs with the faces of special operators.

BY JEFF SCHOGOL | PUBLISHED OCT 19, 2023 5:25 PM EDT

taskandpurpose.com · by Jeff Schogol · October 19, 2023

The White House has removed a picture shared on social media that apparently showed President Joe Biden shaking hands with American special operators in Israel during his recent visit to the country.

“In Israel, President Biden met with first responders to thank them for their bravery and the work they’re doing in response to the Hamas terrorist attacks,” was the caption to the photograph, which the White House shared on Instagram.

The service members in the photograph with Biden were not wearing any badges or insignia that identified their units, but their appearance and tactical gear were consistent with U.S. special operations forces.

The Defense Department typically does not publicly release photographs that show the full faces of U.S. special operators. On most occasions, the U.S. military obscures the faces of special operations forces in photographs.

Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.

Officials at the Defense Department and U.S. Special Operations Command referred questions about the picture to the White House.

A White House spokesperson told Task & Purpose that the photograph had been posted by accident.

“As soon as this was brought to our attention, we immediately deleted the photo,” the spokesperson said. “We regret the error and any issues this may have caused.”

Although the White House took down the picture roughly an hour later, other pictures on Getty appear to show U.S. special operators in Israel wearing full combat gear.

A member of the U.S. Army walks past the motorcade at the Kempinski Hotel where U.S. President Joe Biden was holding bilateral meetings on Oct. 18, 2023, in Tel Aviv, Israel. (Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images).

U.S. government officials have repeatedly stressed that there are no current plans to put American troops on the ground in Israel. Still, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has directed Joint Special Operations Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Central Command to help the Israelis plan missions to rescue hostages taken by Hamas since the Oct. 7 terror attacks.

On Thursday, Task & Purpose asked Air Force Gen. Pat Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, if any U.S. special operations forces are currently deployed to Israel.

“I don’t have any specifics to provide for you,” Ryder said during a Pentagon news conference. “If your question is: Do we have special operations forces conducting boots on the ground operations? Again, you’ve heard us say that we are not going to have boots on the ground. We are providing planning and intelligence support to the Israelis as it pertains to the hostage recovery. That’s about the extent of what I’m able to provide right now.”

The latest on Task & Purpose

Navy fires captain of guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie
The M10 Booker Combat Vehicle is definitely a tank, says Gen. Abrams
Why Navy SEALs wear a trident and other facts about life as a frogman
A-10 Warthogs arrive, more U.S. forces coming amid Israel-Gaza fighting
Army plans to cut ‘unnecessary maintenance’ on vehicles and weapons

Jeff Schogol

Jeff Schogol is a senior staff writer for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 15 years, with previous bylines at the Express-Times in Easton, Pennsylvania, Stars & Stripes, and Military Times. You can email him at schogol@taskandpurpose.com, direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter, or reach him on WhatsApp and Signal at 703-909-6488. Contact the author here.

taskandpurpose.com · by Jeff Schogol · October 19, 2023

12. China says US Pentagon report on nuclear warheads distorts facts

China doth protest too much.

Of course if it does not like the number it could choose transparency and provide accurate information. (note sarcasm).

China says US Pentagon report on nuclear warheads distorts facts

Reuters

BEIJING, Oct 20 (Reuters) - A U.S. Pentagon report saying China will probably have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 was filled with prejudice and distorts facts, and China had no intention of engaging in a nuclear arms race, its foreign ministry said on Friday.

"First of all, the United States report, like similar reports before it, ignores the facts, is full of prejudice and spreads the theory of the threat posed by China," ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told a press briefing in response to a question about the U.S. report.

Mao did not elaborate.

The Pentagon said in an annual report released on Thursday that China had more than 500 operational nuclear warheads in its arsenal, as of May.

"China firmly adheres to a nuclear strategy of self-defence and defence, we have always maintained our nuclear forces at the lowest level required for national security, and we have no intention of engaging in a nuclear arms race with any country," Mao said.

The report added that China's Navy had more than 370 ships and submarines, up from the 340 ships last year.

"As long as any country does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against China, it will not be threatened by China's nuclear weapons," Mao said.

The Pentagon had previously raised alarms about China's possible growing arsenal, underscoring its intentions to expand its warhead development. In a report last November, it said China would likely have a stockpile of 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035.

Reporting by Joe Cash; Writing by Bernard Orr; Editing by Kim Coghill

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Acquire Licensing Rights, opens new tab

Reuters

13. War in a Time of Informational Chaos

Are we ready to fight a war in the information domain?

OPINION

MICHELLE GOLDBERG

War in a Time of Informational Chaos

Oct. 20, 2023, 5:04 a.m. ET

Credit...Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times

Share full article
15

By Michelle Goldberg

Opinion Columnist

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/opinion/israel-war-gaza-hospital-danger.html?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm

As a few bleak anecdotes illustrate, it is often impossible, in real time, for outsiders to know what is happening in the ceaselessly reigniting war between Israel and the Palestinians. This was true even before social media, and before Elon Musk acquired Twitter and turned it into the cesspool of misinformation, trolling and hysteria now called X. But today countless people are plugged into a frantically churning news cycle, trying to instantly metabolize a conflict that is a hall of mirrors in the best of times and is now careening toward a possible regional war, with all the propaganda and mass panic that entails. It’s an epistemological catastrophe that is putting people’s lives in danger.

I went to bed on Tuesday night assuming, as many people did, that an Israeli airstrike killed at least 500 people in the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza. That’s what the Gaza Health Ministry claimed, and those claims made headlines in leading news outlets, including this one. Politicians issued impassioned condemnations of what some called Israeli war crimes. Social media lit up with anguished howls of grief and rage. Furious protests erupted throughout the Middle East. A historic synagogue in Tunisia was reportedly set alight, and a synagogue was firebombed in Berlin. The leaders of Jordan and Egypt canceled a meeting with President Biden, where they would have discussed aid to Gaza.

Of course, I’d read Israel’s insistence that an errant Islamic Jihad rocket had caused the explosion at the hospital, but didn’t put much stock in it, because in the past when Israel has accidentally killed civilians it has blamed the deaths on Palestinians. In May of last year, the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed while covering an Israeli raid on the Jenin refugee camp. Israeli officials said she was either shot by a Palestinian or by an Israeli soldier aiming at a Palestinian gunman. A New York Times investigation, however, contradicted the official Israeli line. It found that the bullet that killed Abu Akleh was fired from the direction of an Israeli military convoy, and that “there were no armed Palestinians near her when she was shot.”

A few months later, during another round of Israeli bombing of Gaza, five Palestinian boys were killed in a cemetery. Initially, Israeli officials blamed the deaths on a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket. But as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported, an army inquiry found they were actually killed by an Israeli airstrike. With the hospital explosion, it seemed as if history was repeating itself on a larger and more tragic scale.

Perhaps it was, just not in the way I thought. As I write this, it looks increasingly likely that Israel was correct about an Islamic Jihad rocket hitting Al-Ahli hospital. That, at least, is what both early American intelligence and a number of independent experts have found. Assuming their analysis holds up, it means the best analogy for this world-convulsing event is not the killings of five boys in Gaza last year. It is the myth of a massacre at the Jenin refugee camp in 2002.

That year, a Hamas suicide bomber killed 30 people at a Passover Seder in the seaside city of Netanya, in what was, until this month, the deadliest single attack on Jewish Israelis since the country’s founding. As part of its response, Israeli Defense Forces invaded the West Bank city of Jenin, leveling dozens of refugee camp buildings. Palestinian leaders claimed Israel had committed a massacre; the Palestinian official Saeb Erekat told CNN that at least 500 people had been killed. People all over the world believed these reports; as a BBC headline put it, “Jenin ‘massacre evidence growing.’”

But Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations all later concluded that the reports of a massacre weren’t true. The real Palestinian death toll was less than 60 — still an awful number, but significantly fewer than what was feared. Human Rights Watch soon revealed that their researchers had found “no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp,” even though many of the civilian deaths “amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF.” This finding, that the Israeli military had committed only a fraction of extrajudicial killings it was accused of, was not an exoneration. But it should have been a cautionary tale about accepting incendiary claims of Israeli atrocities at face value.

The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all. Not long after the allegations emerged of a massacre in Jenin, The Guardian said, “Jenin already has that aura of infamy that attaches to a crime of especial notoriety,” predicting that it would “live on in memory and myth.” The Guardian was wrong about the scale of death in Jenin but right about the afterlife of the rumors. The narrative that Israel perpetrated a massacre at Al-Ahli will soon take on the same aura of infamy, with the amateur forensics of the internet only making it worse.

In much of the world, there will be no dissuading people from holding Israel, and by extension America, liable for the hospital bombing. At the same time, Israel will be able to use this episode to deflect criticism of the violence it really is inflicting on the Palestinians. Jews, whatever their views about Zionism, will be placed in greater danger. As this hideous war grinds on, there will almost certainly be other enormities. We will only compound the horrors if we pretend to be instantly certain about them.

Biden’s plan to expose nuclear secrets to Moscow and Beijing

BY ANTHONY RUGGIERO AND RICHARD GOLDBERG, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 10/19/23 9:30 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4263061-bidens-plan-to-expose-nuclear-secrets-to-moscow-and-beijing/?utm

In a stunning decision to potentially expose vital national security secrets to America’s top adversaries, the Biden administration last month quietly invited Russia and China to send observers to upcoming nuclear weapons-related tests at the U.S. Nevada Test Site. While Beijing and Moscow haven’t responded yet, Congress should prohibit such visits and invest in the U.S. nuclear deterrent instead.

The catalyst for this misguided effort was an explosive and misleading news report last month that created a false equivalency between China’s and Russia’s actions at its own test sites and U.S. activities in Nevada.

Increased activities at test sites in China and Russia, we are supposed to believe, are merely responses to commercial satellite pictures showing increased activities at our own test site in the U.S. The proposed response? Give our adversaries the keys to the nuclear kingdom to avoid misunderstandings — even in the absence of any reciprocal measures by Beijing or Moscow.

This isn’t the first time a naïve and dangerous proposal like this has come forward. More than a decade ago, as part of the so-called “Russia Reset,” the Obama administration proposed sharing classified U.S. missile defense data with Moscow to assure Russian President Vladimir Putin that America’s missile defenses weren’t directed at Russia.

In 2011, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois held up the nomination of Obama’s new ambassador to Russia until the White House promised no sensitive data would be provided. And Congress wrote that commitment into law by prohibiting such transfers in the Defense Authorization bill. The ban remains in place to this day.

The U1a complex at the Nevada test site conducts “subcritical and physics experiments to obtain technical information about the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.” A subcritical experiment uses nuclear material and high explosives but does not set off a nuclear chain reaction.

While Russia and China hide their nuclear budgets, sites and activities from the world, the United States already provides far more transparency – albeit still with a tight grip on access to sensitive areas and information.

Information about the Nevada test site, including a virtual tour of non-sensitive areas, is available online. Washington publishes information about its stockpile stewardship program and subcritical experiments, publicly forecasting two experiments for fiscal year 2024. Earlier this year, the executive secretary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization visited the U1a complex and its underground facilities, though not the sensitive areas where the Biden administration would allow Chinese and Russian officials.

Giving Beijing and Moscow the opportunity to observe how the U.S. maintains its stockpile could help them learn how to defeat that stockpile and improve their own. Concern on Capitol Hill is already emerging. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) has pledged legislation to stop it. In a post on X, the House Armed Services Committee declared, “Our adversaries should not be given access to U.S. nuclear weapon experiments and tests.”

They are right. With Russia openly threatening nuclear weapons use if its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is not successful, and China planning to nearly quadruple its nuclear forces by 2035, such risks represent a national security non-starter.

There are significant concerns that China and Russia are conducting supercritical tests that produce a chain reaction. When nuclear weapon states declared a nuclear test moratorium in 1996, the acceptable standard was not defined. The U.S. adopted a “zero-yield” standard— a pledge to not conduct supercritical tests — to which the United Kingdom and France also adhere.

The State Department assessed last year that China’s lack of transparency on its nuclear experiments raise concerns about Beijing’s activities at its nuclear test site and its commitment to the “zero-yield” standard. Meanwhile, “Russia has conducted nuclear weapons experiments that have created nuclear yield.”

Russia is a serial violator of arms control agreements with the U.S. In February, Russia suspended participation in the New START Treaty, which limited both countries’ strategic nuclear weapon systems. Though the treaty is effectively dead because of the Kremlin’s violations, the Biden administration insists on waiting for a Russian return that may never come. The unpopular fact is that America is safer without the treaty, as Moscow is developing theater nuclear weapons, designed for use on the battlefield, that are not covered by the accord.

Russia has also shown itself to be an untrustworthy international partner. Moscow violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, in which Russia and the U.S. pledged to eliminate all missiles that could travel between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The Trump administration correctly withdrew from the treaty in 2019, as NATO condemned Russia’s violations as “a significant risk to Alliance security.”

China has refused to engage in meaningful discussions on its nuclear program. Given Beijing’s lack of transparency, aggressive posture in the region, and enabling of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, Congress would be justified in pressing for a major modernization and expansion of the U.S. nuclear force.

China and Russia aren’t expanding their nuclear forces because of a lack of American transparency. They are doing so to challenge U.S. global leadership. Congress should do everything possible to ensure that they fail in that effort, starting with a prohibition on Russian and Chinese access to secret nuclear sites.

Anthony Ruggiero is a senior fellow and senior director of the Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Richard Goldberg is a senior advisor.

15. What the Laws of War Say About Forced Displacement and ‘Human Shields’

Excerpts:

“There’s really only one way in which a civilian can lose that immunity from attack or their other protections become weakened, and that is direct participation in hostilities,” said Janina Dill, an Oxford University professor and the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict.

Even if Hamas uses civilian homes for military purposes, or places weapons or fighters in tunnels underneath civilian buildings, it would not necessarily be legal for Israel to attack those targets, said Avichai Mandelblit, a former chief military advocate general of the Israeli military and former attorney general.

...

The best way to understand the legal issues surrounding the evacuation order is by considering the difference between a warning about a future lawful attack and a threat, said Adil Haque, an international law expert at Rutgers University.

“International humanitarian law actually requires attacking forces to warn civilians of planned attacks if possible,” Haque said. “A threat is very different. A threat is when you inform the civilian population that you’re about to launch unlawful attacks, indiscriminate attacks, attacks that don’t take precautions for civilians, disproportionate attacks.”

If humanitarian warnings that help protect civilians from carefully targeted attacks are at one end of the legal spectrum, then the war crime of forced displacement, in which threats and other coercive measures are used to remove civilians from their homes and prevent them from returning, is at the other.

Dill, the Oxford professor, said that the difference between evacuation and forced transfer depended on whether the act would “actually benefit the security of the civilians. So evacuating civilians into further peril, in some senses, is an indication that that exception doesn’t apply,” she said.

THE INTERPRETER

What the Laws of War Say About Forced Displacement and ‘Human Shields’

Amid the sorrow and anger over the ongoing violence, the core principles of humanitarian law are simple. Civilians must be protected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/europe/interpreter-laws-human-shields-forced-displacement.html?referringSource=articleShare&smid=nytcore-ios-share&utm

Share full article

Palestinians leaving the northern Gaza Strip, on their way south, near Khan Younis on Friday, Oct. 13.Credit...Samar Abu Elouf for The New York Times

By Amanda Taub

Oct. 19, 2023

As the Israel-Hamas war continues, its rising civilian death toll has raised more questions about what is allowed under the international laws that govern the waging of war. These rules are remarkably clear in some areas, as I wrote last week, and experts said they had been gravely breached by Hamas in its massacres of civilians and taking of hostages, and by Israel when it announced a complete siege of Gaza that cut off water, food and fuel to over 2 million inhabitants.

In the intervening days, two other legal issues have come to the fore: Hamas’s alleged use of civilians as human shields in the Gaza Strip, and Israel’s order on Friday that all civilians must evacuate from Northern Gaza.

War is politically and emotionally complex, and this conflict is no exception. Tuesday’s blast at the Ahli Arab Hospital compound in Gaza City — which Palestinian militant groups blamed on Israel and Israel blamed on one of them — underscored the horrific human toll of modern warfare.

It remains helpful to remember, amid the sorrow and anger over the ongoing violence, that the core principles of humanitarian law are simple. Civilians must be protected. They cannot legally be targets of violence, or disproportionately harmed by it. And those obligations apply to all parties involved in the fighting, even if the other side has violated them.

“Human shields” are still protected civilians.

Israel has long accused Hamas of using civilians as “human shields.” On Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told President Biden that Hamas is perpetrating “a double war crime, targeting our civilians while hiding behind their civilians.”

The use of human shields is considered a war crime as well as a violation of humanitarian law.

But even if one side intentionally jeopardizes civilians in this way — either by forcing them to remain near military targets or by placing military targets in or adjacent to the same buildings as civilians — those noncombatants are still entitled to full protections under humanitarian law, experts say. That means that when attacking Hamas, Israel must still weigh the proportionality of any harm to human shields and other nearby civilians. If the harm to them is disproportionate to the military objective, the attack is illegal under international law.

“There’s really only one way in which a civilian can lose that immunity from attack or their other protections become weakened, and that is direct participation in hostilities,” said Janina Dill, an Oxford University professor and the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict.

Even if Hamas uses civilian homes for military purposes, or places weapons or fighters in tunnels underneath civilian buildings, it would not necessarily be legal for Israel to attack those targets, said Avichai Mandelblit, a former chief military advocate general of the Israeli military and former attorney general.

Reactions to the Conflict in the U.S.

Jewish Americans: For many American Jews, there have been too many emotions to process. Young people spoke of fear, shock, solidarity and helplessness.
Palestinian Americans: U.S. Palestinians are dismayed by the violence, but some said that politicians and news outlets are overlooking historical context.
Democrats: President Biden’s handling of the conflict has been met with praise by centrists in his party, but tensions on the left are growing.
Harvard University: A coalition of more than 30 student groups posted an open letter blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks. Within days, students affiliated with those groups found themselves at the center of a free speech controversy.

“Of course, there is the question of proportionality,” he said. “If you want a military gain, you have to put it side by side with the collateral damage.”

Ghazi Hammad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, told The Times reporter Yousur Al-Hlou by phone on Thursday that the organization does not use human shields. “This is fake news,” he said.

“You know that Gaza is very small and densely populated, and therefore Israel considers any place to be a residential place,” he added later in a WhatsApp message.

Civilian displacement: threat or warning?

Last week, on Friday morning, Israel ordered hundreds of thousands of civilians to evacuate from northern Gaza within 24 hours, apparently ahead of a planned ground invasion.

The United Nations warned that this would cause a humanitarian catastrophe, and a U.N. spokesman, Stéphane Dujarric, said it had “strongly appealed” for the order to be rescinded in order to avoid making “what is already a tragedy into a calamitous situation.”

The 24-hour deadline came and went, and Israel acknowledged more time was needed to move so many people. Still, it has continued to bombard both northern Gaza and some of the southern areas to which it had urged civilians to flee.

Israel-Hamas War: Live Updates

Updated

Oct. 20, 2023, 7:17 a.m. ET58 minutes ago

58 minutes ago

Gaza health officials said on Thursday that at least 3,785 people had been killed since Oct. 7, including 1,524 children, while Gaza’s government press office said more than a million Palestinians in the enclave had been displaced.

In statements last week, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Norwegian Refugee Council described the order as unlawful.

“The Israeli military demand that 1.2 million civilians in northern Gaza relocate to its south within 24 hours, absent of any guarantees of safety or return, would amount to the war crime of forcible transfer,” said Jan Egeland, the secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a statement: “The instructions issued by the Israeli authorities for the population of Gaza City to immediately leave their homes, coupled with the complete siege explicitly denying them food, water, and electricity, are not compatible with international humanitarian law.”

The best way to understand the legal issues surrounding the evacuation order is by considering the difference between a warning about a future lawful attack and a threat, said Adil Haque, an international law expert at Rutgers University.

“International humanitarian law actually requires attacking forces to warn civilians of planned attacks if possible,” Haque said. “A threat is very different. A threat is when you inform the civilian population that you’re about to launch unlawful attacks, indiscriminate attacks, attacks that don’t take precautions for civilians, disproportionate attacks.”

If humanitarian warnings that help protect civilians from carefully targeted attacks are at one end of the legal spectrum, then the war crime of forced displacement, in which threats and other coercive measures are used to remove civilians from their homes and prevent them from returning, is at the other.

Dill, the Oxford professor, said that the difference between evacuation and forced transfer depended on whether the act would “actually benefit the security of the civilians. So evacuating civilians into further peril, in some senses, is an indication that that exception doesn’t apply,” she said.

Some Gaza residents have said they fear that the order to relocate could be the start of another permanent mass displacement like the “nakba” of 1948, when more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes in present-day Israel during the war surrounding the nation’s establishment. But it is too soon to tell when or how they might be able to return.

Hammad, the member of Hamas’s political bureau, acknowledged that Hamas had encouraged civilians to reject Israel’s order to flee their homes. But he added that “we did not put up barricades and force people to stay.”

Mandelblit, the former chief military advocate general, said that the evacuation would be legal only “if implemented properly.”

One legal requirement was that civilians had to be allowed to return after hostilities ended, he said. “The other conditions should be humanitarian corridors, telling you where you can go safely,” he said. “You also need to include the basic civilian humanitarian needs.”

When I spoke to him on Tuesday, he said that he believed that was happening, noting a statement that day by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Israel had agreed to develop a plan for allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. On Wednesday, President Biden announced that he had secured Israel’s commitment to allow aid into the territory.

However, no aid has yet arrived. As essential resources dwindle, Gazans have been forced to drink polluted water to survive.

Yuval Shany, an international law expert at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said that he believed the order was lawful, noting that communities in Israel had also been evacuated from border areas at risk of fighting. Michael Schmitt, a professor of international law at the University of Reading, also said that he thought that the order was a lawful warning.

The Israeli military did not respond to a request for comment.

Civilians’ protections remain in place even if they do not follow a lawful evacuation order. And some people simply cannot move. Dr. Muhammad Abu Salima, the director of Gaza City’s Al Shifa Hospital, the territory’s largest medical complex, has said that it is impossible to evacuate the hospital despite the Israeli orders to do so, because there is nowhere in Gaza that could accept their patients in their intensive care, neonatal intensive care, and surgery units.

“There’s no obligation for civilians to evacuate even if they get an evacuation order,” Dill said. “Not displacing themselves, not heeding these warnings, not heeding the evacuation orders doesn’t affect their status and their entitlement to immunity from attack and protection at all.”

Yousur Al-Hlou contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 20, 2023, Section A, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: New Questions About Mideast Events and the Laws of War. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

16. China is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metalsChina is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metals

A very long read and comprehensive report. Please go to the link to view all the graphics and proper formatting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/china-deep-sea-mining-military-renewable-energy/?utmhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/china-deep-sea-mining-military-renewable-energy/?utm

China is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metals

Beijing aims to control the resources needed for next-generation tech, including advanced weapons systems

The Kexue, seen in 2019, is one of China’s vessels for exploring deep waters. The ocean floor is shaping up to be the next theater of global resource competition. (Zhang Jinggang/Imaginechina/AP)

Oct. 19 at 5:00 p.m.

281

KINGSTON, Jamaica — When the 5,100-ton Dayang Hao, one of China’s most advanced deep-water expedition vessels, left port south of Shanghai two months ago, a red-and-white banner — the kind used to blast Communist Party exhortations — reminded the crew of their mission: “Strive, explore, contribute.”

CHINA’S GLOBAL LEAP

At every point of the compass, China is quietly laying the foundations of its new international order.

Winning friends by training workers is China’s new gambit

In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety

China hoped Fiji would be a template for the Pacific. Its plan backfired.

China’s quest for human genetic data spurs fears of a DNA arms race

As China arrives with a splash in Honduras, the U.S. wrings its hands

China’s promise of prosperity brought Laos debt — and distress

End of carousel

The Dayang Hao was bound for a 28,500-square-mile stretch of the Pacific Ocean between Japan and Hawaii where China has exclusive rights to prospect for lumpy, golf-ball-size rocks that are millions of years old and worth trillions of dollars.

It is China’s latest contract, won in 2019, to explore for “polymetallic nodules,” which are rich in manganese, cobalt, nickel and copper — metals needed for everything from electric cars to advanced weapons systems. They lie temptingly on the ocean floor, just waiting to be hoovered up.

Whether working deep at sea or on land at the headquarters of the United Nations’ seabed regulator here in Kingston, Beijing is striving to get a jump on the burgeoning industry of deep-sea mining.

The ROV KIEL 6000 explored the seafloor of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for a project examining the effects of polymetallic nodule mining on deep-sea ecosystems. The picture shows “nodule frames” for a repopulation experiment. (ROV Team/Geomar)

China already holds five of the 30 exploration licenses that the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has granted to date — the most of any country — in preparation for the start of deep-sea mining as soon as 2025. When that happens, China will have exclusive rights to excavate 92,000 square miles of international seabed — about the size of the United Kingdom — or 17 percent of the total area currently licensed by the ISA.

Map shows licenses for deep sea mining

Deep-sea mining exploration zones

The International Seabed Authority has granted 30 licenses across four areas to explore the seafloor for valuable metals used in modern technologies. China has the most licenses of any country, with five.

EXPLORATION AREAS:

Polymetallic nodules

Polymetallic sulfides

Cobalt-rich crusts

Potato-shaped rocks rich in manganese, cobalt, nickel and copper that lie on the seafloor.

Chimney-like mounds found near hydrothermal vents in the ocean, containing copper, zinc, gold and silver.

Hardened layers of rock on seamounts that have high concentrations of cobalt, manganese and nickel.

19 contracts awarded

7 contracts awarded

4 contracts awarded

Northwest

Pacific Ocean

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

South Korea

BPHDC (China)

COMRA (China)

JOGMEC (Japan)

Russia

Poland, Russia

and IFREMER (France)

Exclusive

economic zones

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Indian Ocean

BGR (Germany)

BMJ (Jamaica)

CIIC (Cook Islands)

CMC (China)

COMRA (China)

DORD (Japan)

GSR (Belgium)

South Korea

IFREMER (France)

IOM (Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Rep., Poland, Russia, Slov.)

Marawa (Kiribati)

NORI (Nauru)

OMS (Singapore)

TOML (Tonga)

UKSRL (Britain; two contract areas)

Yuzhmorgeologiya (Russia)

India

South Korea

BGR (Germany)

COMRA (China)

Sources: International Seabed Authority,

marineregions.org, Natural Earth

The ocean floor is shaping up to be the world’s next theater of global resource competition — and China is set to dominate it. The sea is believed to hold several times what land does of these rare metals, which are critical for almost all of today’s electronics, clean-energy products and advanced computer chips. As countries race to cut greenhouse gas emissions, demand for these minerals is expected to skyrocket.

When deep-sea mining begins, China — which already controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare-earth metals and produces three-quarters of all lithium-ion batteries — will extend its chokehold over emerging industries like clean energy. Mining will also give Beijing a potent new tool in its escalating rivalry with the United States. As a sign of how these resources could be weaponized, China in August started restricting exports of two metals that are key to U.S. defense systems.

A cobalt crust from the Bathymetrists Seamounts off the west coast of Africa contains rare-earth metals. (Jan Steffen/Geomar)

“If China can take the lead in seabed mining, it really has the lock on access to all the key minerals for the 21st-century green economy,” said Carla Freeman, senior expert for China at the United States Institute of Peace.

In the case of polymetallic nodules, that means sending robotic vehicles as deep as 18,000 feet to the vast, dark seafloor, where they will slowly vacuum up about four inches of seabed, then pump it up to a ship.

The area marked for mining, though less than 1 percent of the total international seabed, would still be huge. The 30 exploration contracts cover 540,000 square miles but are concentrated in an expanse of the Pacific called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Spanning 3,100 miles, it is wider than the contiguous United States and contains up to six times the cobalt and three times the nickel in all land-based reserves.

Map shows licenses for deep sea mining in the Clario-Clipperton Zone

U.S.

MEXICO

HAWAII

Other

contractors

JOHNSTON

ATOLL

(U.S.)

CMC

China Minmetals

Corp.

CLIPPERTON

ATOLL

(France)

PALMYRA

ATOLL

(U.S.)

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

This zone spans 3,100 miles and contains up to six times the cobalt and three times the nickel in all entire land-based reserves. Chinese contractors have licenses to explore two of the 17 areas of the zone.

COMRA

KIRIBATI

China Ocean Mineral Resource Research and Development Association

400 MILES

In its quest to dominate this industry, China has focused its efforts on the Kingston-based ISA, housed in a weathered limestone building overlooking the Caribbean Sea. By wielding influence at an organization where it is by far the most powerful player — the United States is not a member of the ISA — Beijing has a chance to shape international rules to its advantage.

This approach is key to Xi Jinping’s bid for global preeminence. China’s strongest leader in decades, Xi is set on transforming China into a global power that is no longer beholden to the West, including by becoming a maritime power able to compete militarily with the United States.

“If China can take the lead in seabed mining, it really has the lock on access to all the key minerals for the 21st-century green economy.”

— Carla Freeman, senior expert for China at the United States Institute of Peace

“If you want to become a global power, you have to maintain the security of your sea lanes and interests. So becoming a maritime power is inevitable,” said Zhu Feng, executive director of the China Center for Collaborative Studies of the South China Sea at Nanjing University.

The United States has done little to respond to China’s moves in the deep sea. It is only an observer at the ISA, meaning it’s at risk of being sidelined as the rules for this future industry are being made. Unlike China, U.S. companies do not have any exploration contracts with the ISA, and critics say Washington lacks a clear plan on how to compete in this new industry.

“The logic is that if we don’t make the rules, they will,” said Isaac Kardon, the author of “China’s Law of the Sea” and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“These are frontier areas of international law where there’s not an obvious regime, and it’s especially appealing because the U.S. isn’t there,” he said. “It’s an obvious front in whatever this great-power competition is.”

Polymetallic nodules are seen within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is the main area being targeted for deep-sea mining of rare metals by China. (The Metals Company)

Story continues below advertisement

China’s ‘slowly and surely’ approach pays off

People in Qingdao, in China’s Shandong province, greet the staff and crew of the deep-sea survey ship Xiangyang Hong 09 in July 2012. (Yu Fangping/ImagineChina/AP)

It was almost 9 on a mid-July evening when Gou Haibo, tall and lean in a dark suit, emerged from more than six hours of closed-door talks at ISA headquarters.

The Chinese delegation member stopped to smoke a cigarette in a garden outside the main hall, where he would present his country’s case on the issue at hand: how to open up the international seabed, which covers more than half the planet, to industrial mining.

The ISA is under pressure to come up with rules after the Pacific island of Nauru, partnering with Canadian firm The Metals Company, in 2021 triggered a provision that requires the organization to allow mining within two years, even if a regulatory code is not in place.

“The logic is that if we don’t make the rules, they will.”

— Isaac Kardon, author of “China’s Law of the Sea” and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

ISA member countries must come to an agreement on a final code or face the possibility of mining proceeding unrestricted. For now, further discussion of the “two-year rule” has been shunted to next year.

China, according to Gou, wants things to move faster. He took issue with the group’s declaration, after days of negotiation, that countries “intend to” agree on a set of regulations by the end of 2025.

“The Chinese delegation still prefers the original term — ‘commits,’” Gou told the meeting. Otherwise, he said, “it seems a little unclear what we are going to do in the coming months or in the coming years.”

China’s stance was an example of the persistence with which its diplomats work to be heard and to direct proceedings at the ISA.

Dong Xiaojun, China’s ambassador to Jamaica, attends a 2015 meeting of the International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. By wielding influence at the ISA, Beijing has a chance to shape international rules to its advantage. (David McFadden/AP)

Delegates and former ISA staffers describe Beijing as wielding quiet influence through various channels, including by hosting workshops and dinners lubricated by baijiu, the notoriously strong Chinese liquor.

Sandor Mulsow, who held senior positions at the ISA from 2013 to 2019, said China has a “very strong and long-term agenda.”

“China always works very slowly and surely, and they keep going,” he said.

As of 2021, China became the biggest contributor to the organization’s administrative budget, the ISA said. Beijing regularly donates to various ISA funds and, in 2020, announced a joint training center with the ISA in the Chinese port city of Qingdao.

WHY WE’RE TRACKING CHINA’S GLOBAL INFLUENCE

The Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to forge new economic and diplomatic alliances, including through its Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, are now well known. Also, at every point of the compass, Beijing is laying the foundations of its new international order and shaping places and institutions outside its borders in its image.

Where we went and why

We looked for places where China’s efforts had gone relatively unnoticed. We sought to show the breadth of China’s ambitions —from collecting DNA information to policing to media representation.

How we reported this series

Our team fanned out across the world, reporting from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and Europe.

Shibani Mahtani reported on Chinese influence in Singaporean media and vocational education in Indonesia and Lao indebtedness to China.

Michael Miller traveled to Fiji, detailing the fallout from China’s policing agreement.

How we reported this series

Joby Warrick and Cate Brown reported on China leading the arms race of mass-collecting DNA data.

Karen DeYoung traveled to Tegucigalpa to report on the Honduran government’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with China, breaking its ties with Taiwan.

We are continuing to document Beijing’s reach.

1/4

End of carousel

“It’s quite clear that when China speaks, everyone tends to listen and tries to accommodate,” said Pradeep Singh, an expert on ocean governance with the Research Institute for Sustainability in Germany who has been attending ISA meetings since 2018.

In July, the Chinese delegation showed up in force. It included representatives from the country’s foreign and natural resources ministries, its permanent mission to the ISA, and the three state-run companies that control the country’s five exploration contracts.

At a time when Western participation in the U.N. system is declining, Chinese scholars and officials have been pushing for a bigger role at organizations like the ISA — heeding Xi’s call to improve Beijing’s international clout. On the 52-member staff of the ISA’s secretariat, which administers the organization, two positions are held by Chinese nationals. A commission on legal affairs and a committee on financial matters include one Chinese national each. Experts nominated by China are always in those bodies, according to Secretary General Michael Lodge.

“If you have people in those positions, you’re going to know everything that’s going on,” said James McFarlane, head of the Office of Resources and Environmental Monitoring at the ISA from 2009 to 2011.

Asked whether China exercises more influence because of its financial contributions, Lodge said: “Every state participates to the extent that it decides to do so.”

China’s Foreign Ministry, the Chinese Embassy in Jamaica and the three Chinese contractors did not respond to multiple requests for interviews. Delegates at the meetings in Kingston declined to speak on the record.

But experts who are watching closely say that Beijing is being strategic in its approach.

“China is probably the single most-active country in the ISA,” said Peter Dutton, a professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. “One of the things that the Chinese are doing very effectively is engaging in the rulemaking, and writing regulations that can favor their interests. They’re out there ahead of us, and that’s one area we need to be concerned about.”

Mastering technology, minimizing environmental risk

The Xiangyang Hong 09, carrying a crewed deep-sea submersible named Jialong, docks in the port city of Qingdao, in Shandong province, in July 2012. In 2020, China announced a joint training center with the International Seabed Authority, to be housed in Qingdao. (Yang Tongyu/ImagineChina/AP)

For China, deep-sea mining has never been entirely about natural resources. It has also been about overturning the traditional international order dominated by the West.

In the 1960s and 1970s, as researchers realized the extent of the ocean’s mineral wealth, the question over who has a right to those resources became ideological.

Rich countries like the United States wanted to operate on a first-come, first-served basis while China, a developing country, sided with Global South nations and said the spoils should be shared. China’s side won, and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), agreed upon in 1982, has been ratified by most countries. The United States recognizes the convention but has not ratified it, in part because of opposition to its provisions on seabed mining.

Under the convention, the ISA was established in 1994 and charged with overseeing deep-sea mining. U.S. critics say acceding to the treaty would undermine U.S. sovereignty on the high seas by handing power to the ISA.

The ROV KIEL 6000’s expedition in 2019 to the seafloor of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone finds a polymetallic nodule on which a coral grows. (ROV Team/Geomar)

China was one of the first countries to send a permanent mission to the ISA. The Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper declared UNCLOS a victory against “maritime hegemony,” while the head of China’s State Oceanic Administration called it the “formation of a new international maritime order.”

“It’s quite clear that when China speaks, everyone tends to listen and tries to accommodate.”

— Pradeep Singh, an expert on ocean governance who has been attending ISA meetings since 2018

China joined the deep-sea race and has spent the past few decades steadily investing more in technology and equipment, catching up with its Western rivals — who had been far ahead — and, in some areas, surpassing them.

In 2001, the country’s first deep-sea mining contractor, China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association, or COMRA, won China’s first license to explore for polymetallic nodules.

China is now home to at least 12 institutions dedicated to deep-sea research — one of them, a sprawling campus in Wuxi, Jiangsu province, plans to hire 4,000 people by 2025. Dozens of colleges have sprung up to focus on marine sciences.

In a speech in 2016, Xi talked about accessing the “treasures” of the ocean and ordered his country to “master key technologies for entering the deep sea.”

Aboard the research vessel Maersk Launcher in 2010, Katie Allen, an environmental associate for Canadian firm The Metals Company, shows nodules containing nickel, cobalt and manganese taken from the ocean floor. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)

At the heart of the debate about deep-sea mining is whether this can be done in a way that doesn’t harm ocean ecosystems and species. Scientists say this kind of activity on the seafloor will destroy a library of information important to medical breakthroughs, understanding the origins of life, and other advances.

Environmentalists say deep-sea mining will disturb the world’s largest natural carbon sink, which absorbs one-third of carbon dioxide generated on land. Mining platforms, machinery and transport ships will add to noise and pollution that damage marine life.

In addition to polymetallic nodules, two other types of deposits are being considered for ocean mining — polymetallic sulfides, found in hydrothermal vents, and metal-rich cobalt crusts, which lie in hardened layers along underwater mountains. Both will be even harder to mine.

A mining vehicle explores the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is the main area being targeted for the mining of rare metals by China and other countries. (The Metals Company)

Environmentalists also worry that China’s history of privileging industry over the environment will lead to diluted regulations. Residents and authorities in southeastern China are still grappling with the widespread soil and water pollution caused by a boom in mining for rare-earth metals starting in the 1990s.

Over the three-week session in July, Chinese delegates advised the ISA to be “prudent” in levying financial punishments on contractors that violate rules. The delegation opposed the creation of an independent commission to ensure companies follow environmental regulations.

Story continues below advertisement

For the entire last week of the meeting, China single-handedly blocked debate on maritime protection, including discussion of a moratorium on deep-sea mining, a proposal that is now supported by 22 countries concerned about environmental damage.

Chinese officials often say environmental preservation must be balanced against the need for development — an approach that concerns other delegates.

“If you balance these, then it would not be effective. It’s a mandate of UNCLOS,” said Gina Guillen-Grillo, head of the Costa Rican delegation, citing UNCLOS Article 145, which says countries must ensure “effective protection for the marine environment from harmful effects.”

“You have to comply with it, and once you comply with it, you can mine,” she said. “It’s not like you can mine a little and comply a little.”

Nodules containing nickel, cobalt and manganese rest atop core samples taken from the ocean floor. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)

But proponents say that deep-sea mining is the world’s only industry to be regulated before it exists and that it is necessary for the electric cars and other technologies that will help avert climate disaster.

Contractors like The Metals Company — the only firm to test a full deep-sea mining system in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone — are ahead in the technology race, but Chinese companies are catching up.

“They are starting to build momentum,” said Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, referring to the three Chinese firms in control of China’s exploration claims. “We are seeing, certainly, an increase in activity. They now have substantial budgets that they didn’t have two years ago.”

In 2021, China’s COMRA tested a system to collect polymetallic nodules at a depth of 4,200 feet in the East and South China Seas.

“When it comes to writing international deep-sea rules, China’s voice is getting stronger,” Liu Feng, then head of COMRA, wrote in a 2021 paper.

China is now positioning itself as a leader ready to teach other countries about the sea. Its domestically produced submersibles are capable of diving more than 35,000 feet to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on Earth.

“Now we have this equipment, we can make up for lost time,” Wang Pinxian, a Chinese marine geologist who spearheaded some of China’s earliest deep-sea programs, said in an interview. “China can be its own master and can host and work with people from developing countries.”

Mining technology with military applications

The Chinese vessel Dayang Yihao, seen in July 2018, has spent time in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone near Hawaii conducting research for deep-sea mining. (Xue Hun/Imaginechina/AP)

While the Dayang Hao was prospecting for polymetallic nodules in the past few months, Beijing Pioneer Hi-Tech Development — the Chinese contractor in control of that claim area — was testing a high-precision survey system that can operate at depths of more than 19,000 feet. The vessel had students from Kenya, Argentina, Nigeria and Malaysia on board, where they studied the ocean and played tug of war, according to state media.

Such benign descriptions belie what researchers say is the other clear purpose of China’s deep-sea program: to develop military advantages in the ocean.

The research needed to prepare for deep-sea mining — measuring the acoustics or temperature of currents, mapping the topography, and developing equipment that can operate under high pressure at low visibility — is the same as that needed for underwater warfare.

China’s growing influence, explained

Tracking China’s global influence

Winning friends by training workers is China’s new gambit

July 10, 2023

In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety

July 24, 2023

China hoped Fiji would be a template for the Pacific. Its plan backfired.

Aug. 21, 2023

China’s quest for human genetic data spurs fears of a DNA arms race

As China arrives with a splash in Honduras, the U.S. wrings its hands

Oct. 2, 2023

China’s promise of prosperity brought Laos debt — and distress

Oct. 12, 2023

China is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metals

U.S. and China battle for influence in Pacific island nations

July 26, 2023

End of carousel

“When they’re sending submersibles, the planners behind it are thinking about minerals but they’re also thinking about how to take advantage of the deep sea for military advantage, not just anti-submarine warfare but also for their submarines,” said Alexander Gray, a former White House National Security Council official now at the American Foreign Policy Council.

“The planners ... are thinking about minerals but they’re also thinking about how to take advantage of the deep sea for military advantage.”

— Alexander Gray, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council

China has also signaled that it’s thinking this way. China’s national security law now includes the international seabed as an area where Chinese assets and interests must be guarded. China’s Central Military Commission, which oversees the country’s armed forces, has identified the deep sea as a new battlefield.

Chinese scholars have flagged the importance of polymetallic nodules for military and aerospace equipment, while China’s People’s Liberation Army noted the opportunities of the deep sea for modern warfare in a 2022 article.

There are close connections among China’s academic, commercial and military sectors, and several of the country’s most ambitious deep-sea mining projects have been funded under military research programs. China Minmetals, one of the contractors in control of China’s deep-sea exploration licenses, carried out mining tests under the 863 Program, a government initiative to develop cutting-edge technology for national security.

Employees of China Minmetals attend the opening ceremony of a metallurgical plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013. China Minmetals is one of the Chinese companies seeking to mine rare metals from the seafloor. (Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg News/Getty Images)

These close links make it difficult to know when Chinese deep-sea survey ships are collecting data for scientific or military purposes.

According to ship-tracking data collected by Global Fishing Watch and the Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Chinese deep-sea survey vessels, including the Dayang Hao, have in recent years ventured into the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, Palau and the United States.

One of those ships, the Kexue, did surveying for 20 days in July and August 2022 near the Scarborough Shoal, one of the most contested areas in the South China Sea and the site of an ongoing showdown between China and the Philippines, which both claim the atoll. The Dayang Hao also appeared to conduct ocean bed surveying in exclusive economic zones of the Philippines and Malaysia, near the disputed Spratly Islands.

Under international law, it is illegal to conduct commercial or scientific research in another country’s exclusive economic zone without permission.

Map shows Chinese vessels near The Philippines's EEZ

Before an expedition to the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in July 2022, the Chinese vessel Dayang Hao appeared to conduct seabed surveying in the exclusive economic zones of the Philippines and Malaysia, near the disputed Spratly Islands.

U.S.

Kexue

CHINA

Dayang Hao

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Scarborough

Shoal

The Philippines’ EEZ

Spratly Islands

Malaysia’s EEZ

Also in July 2022, another Chinese vessel, the Kexue, conducted surveying near the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the EEZ of the Philippines.

Harrison Prétat, associate director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said China’s vast fleet of survey vessels could be collecting information for the Chinese military.

“In all likelihood, many of these surveys are both scientific and military, or commercial and military,” Prétat said.

At the end of 2021, a sister vessel of the Dayang Hao, the Dayang Yihao, was exploring the Clarion-Clipperton Zone as part of a four-month expedition by China Minmetals when it suddenly traveled away from China’s claim area, heading straight north. It crossed into the U.S. exclusive economic zone near Hawaii, where it traveled for five days, tracing a loop just south of Honolulu, before returning to its claim area.

The State Department did not receive a request from China to conduct scientific research in the U.S. zone on those dates, a spokesperson said.

Map shows Chinese vessel Dayang Yihao entering U.S.'s EEZ

U.S.’s exclusive

economic zone

U.S.

CHINA

HAWAII

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Dayang Yihao

The Chinese research vessel Dayang Yihao took a detour from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and entered the U.S. exclusive economic zone near Hawaii for five days in December 2021.

It is illegal to conduct commercial or scientific research in another country’s EEZ without permission.

The detour would have given researchers a chance to understand the seabed topography around Hawaii, or the conditions of naval operations and how submarines move in and out.

“The U.S. would be concerned if any state-owned vessel was close,” said Thomas Shugart, a former U.S. Navy submarine warfare officer and an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Such movements are a concern for both countries — and one that will only become more pressing as deep-sea mining becomes a reality.

“For China, as it becomes a maritime power,” said Zhu, of Nanjing University, “how and whether it can establish a mechanism for working with the United States is definitely a difficult problem.”

Story continues below advertisement

About this story

Story by Lily Kuo, with research by Pei-Lin Wu. Story editing by Anna Fifield. Project editing by Courtney Kan. Photo editing by Jennifer Samuel. Video editing by Jason Aldag. Graphics by Samuel Granados. Design and development by Kat Rudell-Brooks and Yutao Chen. Design editing by Joe Moore. Copy editing by Melissa Ngo and Martha Murdock.

281 Comments

Lily Kuo is The Washington Post's China bureau chief. She previously served as the Beijing bureau chief for the Guardian. Before that she reported for Quartz in Kenya, Hong Kong and New York, and for Reuters in New York and Washington. Twitter

A very long read and comprehensive report. Please go to the link to view all the graphics and proper formatting.

China is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metals

Beijing aims to control the resources needed for next-generation tech, including advanced weapons systems

The Kexue, seen in 2019, is one of China’s vessels for exploring deep waters. The ocean floor is shaping up to be the next theater of global resource competition. (Zhang Jinggang/Imaginechina/AP)

Oct. 19 at 5:00 p.m.

281

CHINA’S GLOBAL LEAP

At every point of the compass, China is quietly laying the foundations of its new international order.

Winning friends by training workers is China’s new gambit

In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety

China hoped Fiji would be a template for the Pacific. Its plan backfired.

China’s quest for human genetic data spurs fears of a DNA arms race

As China arrives with a splash in Honduras, the U.S. wrings its hands

China’s promise of prosperity brought Laos debt — and distress

End of carousel

Whether working deep at sea or on land at the headquarters of the United Nations’ seabed regulator here in Kingston, Beijing is striving to get a jump on the burgeoning industry of deep-sea mining.

Map shows licenses for deep sea mining

Deep-sea mining exploration zones

EXPLORATION AREAS:

Polymetallic nodules

Polymetallic sulfides

Cobalt-rich crusts

Potato-shaped rocks rich in manganese, cobalt, nickel and copper that lie on the seafloor.

Chimney-like mounds found near hydrothermal vents in the ocean, containing copper, zinc, gold and silver.

Hardened layers of rock on seamounts that have high concentrations of cobalt, manganese and nickel.

19 contracts awarded

7 contracts awarded

4 contracts awarded

Northwest

Pacific Ocean

Mid-Atlantic Ridge

South Korea

BPHDC (China)

COMRA (China)

JOGMEC (Japan)

Russia

Poland, Russia

and IFREMER (France)

Exclusive

economic zones

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Indian Ocean

BGR (Germany)

BMJ (Jamaica)

CIIC (Cook Islands)

CMC (China)

COMRA (China)

DORD (Japan)

GSR (Belgium)

South Korea

IFREMER (France)

IOM (Bulgaria, Cuba, Czech Rep., Poland, Russia, Slov.)

Marawa (Kiribati)

NORI (Nauru)

OMS (Singapore)

TOML (Tonga)

UKSRL (Britain; two contract areas)

Yuzhmorgeologiya (Russia)

India

South Korea

BGR (Germany)

COMRA (China)

Sources: International Seabed Authority,

marineregions.org, Natural Earth

A cobalt crust from the Bathymetrists Seamounts off the west coast of Africa contains rare-earth metals. (Jan Steffen/Geomar)

Map shows licenses for deep sea mining in the Clario-Clipperton Zone

U.S.

MEXICO

HAWAII

Other

contractors

JOHNSTON

ATOLL

(U.S.)

CMC

China Minmetals

Corp.

CLIPPERTON

ATOLL

(France)

PALMYRA

ATOLL

(U.S.)

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

COMRA

KIRIBATI

China Ocean Mineral Resource Research and Development Association

400 MILES

“If China can take the lead in seabed mining, it really has the lock on access to all the key minerals for the 21st-century green economy.”

— Carla Freeman, senior expert for China at the United States Institute of Peace

“The logic is that if we don’t make the rules, they will,” said Isaac Kardon, the author of “China’s Law of the Sea” and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Polymetallic nodules are seen within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is the main area being targeted for deep-sea mining of rare metals by China. (The Metals Company)

Story continues below advertisement

China’s ‘slowly and surely’ approach pays off

People in Qingdao, in China’s Shandong province, greet the staff and crew of the deep-sea survey ship Xiangyang Hong 09 in July 2012. (Yu Fangping/ImagineChina/AP)

It was almost 9 on a mid-July evening when Gou Haibo, tall and lean in a dark suit, emerged from more than six hours of closed-door talks at ISA headquarters.

“The logic is that if we don’t make the rules, they will.”

— Isaac Kardon, author of “China’s Law of the Sea” and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

China’s stance was an example of the persistence with which its diplomats work to be heard and to direct proceedings at the ISA.

Sandor Mulsow, who held senior positions at the ISA from 2013 to 2019, said China has a “very strong and long-term agenda.”

“China always works very slowly and surely, and they keep going,” he said.

WHY WE’RE TRACKING CHINA’S GLOBAL INFLUENCE

Where we went and why

How we reported this series

Our team fanned out across the world, reporting from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Central America and Europe.

Shibani Mahtani reported on Chinese influence in Singaporean media and vocational education in Indonesia and Lao indebtedness to China.

Michael Miller traveled to Fiji, detailing the fallout from China’s policing agreement.

How we reported this series

Joby Warrick and Cate Brown reported on China leading the arms race of mass-collecting DNA data.

Karen DeYoung traveled to Tegucigalpa to report on the Honduran government’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with China, breaking its ties with Taiwan.

We are continuing to document Beijing’s reach.

1/4

End of carousel

Asked whether China exercises more influence because of its financial contributions, Lodge said: “Every state participates to the extent that it decides to do so.”

But experts who are watching closely say that Beijing is being strategic in its approach.

Mastering technology, minimizing environmental risk

For China, deep-sea mining has never been entirely about natural resources. It has also been about overturning the traditional international order dominated by the West.

In the 1960s and 1970s, as researchers realized the extent of the ocean’s mineral wealth, the question over who has a right to those resources became ideological.

The ROV KIEL 6000’s expedition in 2019 to the seafloor of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone finds a polymetallic nodule on which a coral grows. (ROV Team/Geomar)

“It’s quite clear that when China speaks, everyone tends to listen and tries to accommodate.”

— Pradeep Singh, an expert on ocean governance who has been attending ISA meetings since 2018

In a speech in 2016, Xi talked about accessing the “treasures” of the ocean and ordered his country to “master key technologies for entering the deep sea.”

A mining vehicle explores the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is the main area being targeted for the mining of rare metals by China and other countries. (The Metals Company)

Story continues below advertisement

Chinese officials often say environmental preservation must be balanced against the need for development — an approach that concerns other delegates.

“You have to comply with it, and once you comply with it, you can mine,” she said. “It’s not like you can mine a little and comply a little.”

Nodules containing nickel, cobalt and manganese rest atop core samples taken from the ocean floor. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images)

Contractors like The Metals Company — the only firm to test a full deep-sea mining system in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone — are ahead in the technology race, but Chinese companies are catching up.

In 2021, China’s COMRA tested a system to collect polymetallic nodules at a depth of 4,200 feet in the East and South China Seas.

“When it comes to writing international deep-sea rules, China’s voice is getting stronger,” Liu Feng, then head of COMRA, wrote in a 2021 paper.

Mining technology with military applications

The Chinese vessel Dayang Yihao, seen in July 2018, has spent time in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone near Hawaii conducting research for deep-sea mining. (Xue Hun/Imaginechina/AP)

Such benign descriptions belie what researchers say is the other clear purpose of China’s deep-sea program: to develop military advantages in the ocean.

China’s growing influence, explained

Tracking China’s global influence

Winning friends by training workers is China’s new gambit

July 10, 2023

In Singapore, loud echoes of Beijing’s positions generate anxiety

July 24, 2023

China hoped Fiji would be a template for the Pacific. Its plan backfired.

Aug. 21, 2023

China’s quest for human genetic data spurs fears of a DNA arms race

As China arrives with a splash in Honduras, the U.S. wrings its hands

Oct. 2, 2023

China’s promise of prosperity brought Laos debt — and distress

Oct. 12, 2023

China is set to dominate the deep sea and its wealth of rare metals

U.S. and China battle for influence in Pacific island nations

July 26, 2023

End of carousel

“The planners ... are thinking about minerals but they’re also thinking about how to take advantage of the deep sea for military advantage.”

— Alexander Gray, senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council

These close links make it difficult to know when Chinese deep-sea survey ships are collecting data for scientific or military purposes.

Under international law, it is illegal to conduct commercial or scientific research in another country’s exclusive economic zone without permission.

Map shows Chinese vessels near The Philippines's EEZ

U.S.

Kexue

CHINA

Dayang Hao

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Scarborough

Shoal

The Philippines’ EEZ

Spratly Islands

Malaysia’s EEZ

Also in July 2022, another Chinese vessel, the Kexue, conducted surveying near the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the EEZ of the Philippines.

“In all likelihood, many of these surveys are both scientific and military, or commercial and military,” Prétat said.

The State Department did not receive a request from China to conduct scientific research in the U.S. zone on those dates, a spokesperson said.

Map shows Chinese vessel Dayang Yihao entering U.S.'s EEZ

U.S.’s exclusive

economic zone

U.S.

CHINA

HAWAII

Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Dayang Yihao

The Chinese research vessel Dayang Yihao took a detour from the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and entered the U.S. exclusive economic zone near Hawaii for five days in December 2021.

It is illegal to conduct commercial or scientific research in another country’s EEZ without permission.

The detour would have given researchers a chance to understand the seabed topography around Hawaii, or the conditions of naval operations and how submarines move in and out.

Such movements are a concern for both countries — and one that will only become more pressing as deep-sea mining becomes a reality.

Story continues below advertisement

About this story

281 Comments

17. Pentagon scours weapons stockpiles for Israel, even as Ukraine stresses industry

One of the positive effects that must come from these wars in Europe and the MIddle East is a revitalization of our industrial base and focus on strategic logistics.

Can the US return to being the Arsenal of Democracy?

Pentagon scours weapons stockpiles for Israel, even as Ukraine stresses industry

By PAUL MCLEARY

10/19/2023 12:43 PM EDT

DOD has launched a new task force to rush weapons to the Middle East.

An Israeli missile launched from the Iron Dome defense missile system attempts to intercept rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip, in southern Israel on October 8, 2023. Within a day of Hamas’ initial attack on Israel, the Biden administration told lawmakers that Israel desperately needed more interceptors. | Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

10/19/2023 12:43 PM EDT

The U.S. has launched a new effort to quickly find more precision weapons and artillery shells to rush to Israel as the Middle Eastern country conducts hundreds of strikes a day against Hamas targets in Gaza.

A newly formed team inside the Pentagon has been tasked with scouring U.S. stockpiles, searching for ammunition to resupply Israel as it fires off munitions at a frantic pace, according to three people familiar with the effort.

The move comes as the defense industry and the Pentagon scramble to send weapons to Ukraine and keep U.S. shelves stocked.

The group leading the effort comprises officials from across the Pentagon, including the acquisition and policy offices, as well as the armed services. They seek to replicate the efforts of another team of Defense and State Department officials that has been working on military aid for Ukraine, according to the people, one of them an administration official, granted anonymity to speak about internal matters that have not been announced. The existence of the group has not been previously reported.

The new effort is the latest sign of the administration’s urgency when it comes to arming Israel, and also gives an early look at the challenge facing the U.S. as it speeds weapons and equipment for two overseas wars at once.

Israel has already used up more than 8,000 precision munitions, and with Hezbollah looming on its northern border and the war showing little sign of ending, the government is eager to restock.

Many of those same munitions are also key to American war plans in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere and have been rushed to Ukraine over the past year.

The need to shuttle supplies for the Ukraine and Israeli wars is creating an “inflection point” for America’s defense industry, said Dak Hardwick, vice president of International Affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, an industry trade group.

“There has not been a time in the past 30 years where you essentially have had two real conflicts happening at the same time with a potential third one in three different regions of the world,” he said, referring to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Within a day of Hamas’ initial attack on Israel, the Biden administration told lawmakers that Israel desperately needed more interceptors for its Iron Dome air defense system, along with artillery shells and precision-guided munitions.

While Ukraine is fighting a different type of war than Israel, there are weapons that both countries want from the U.S. Those include 155mm artillery shells, along with air-launched small diameter bombs, joint direct attack munitions and Hellfire missiles, demands that will only grow as the two wars grind on and the U.S. continues to ready itself for any potential clash with China.

Given these competing priorities, it is past time for Pentagon leadership to have a “first supper” with industry leaders to speak frankly about what can be done to increase production to restock U.S. military warehouses, said Josh Kirshner, managing director at Beacon Global Strategies, a national security consulting firm.

The idea is a reversal of the infamous “last supper” dinner meeting then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin held with defense contractors in 1993 warning them that big budget cuts were coming and urging them to consolidate.

“There’s frustration on both sides as DoD and industry seem to be talking past each other,” Kirshner said. “We need to figure out how to put the defense industry on a wartime footing even if U.S. troops aren’t at war. It’s not something the system is designed for but needs to change if we’re serious about supporting partners.”

While Defense Department officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, say the U.S. can handle Ukraine and Israel at the same time, there is increasing skepticism about the base’s ability to keep up, especially when the Ukraine demand was already straining the system.

Experts have warned that this problem is coming, if not already here. In January, Seth Jones, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, released a study saying the Pentagon would quickly face some major weapons shortages if it were to fight a major power such as China due to the current peacetime-levels of production of precision weapons.

Ramping up to wartime levels means opening new production lines, signing contracts quickly and hiring more workers — a tall order for a country not actually at war.

Just days into such a fight, “the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of ‘empty bins.’”

The sheer volume of munitions being fired in Ukraine alone has been a wake-up call for America’s defense community, according to Patrick Mason, a deputy assistant secretary of the Army.

“The scale is phenomenal when you look at the consumption of 155 [millimeter artillery] rounds,” he told an Army conference last week. “We have not seen anything like that, and the scale is incredibly daunting, especially when you’re in those meetings and you talk about what we need to do to increase our artillery production.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. arsenal continues to churn out munitions for allies and partners, and has pumped more money into the defense industry to increase production of items such as artillery shells and Patriot missiles. But those investments take time to bear fruit.

The Pentagon is expected to announce another $150 million shipment of weapons to Kyiv this week that includes those 155mm shells, along with Patriot and other air defense missiles.

Army officials have committed to increasing the output of 155mm shells to 100,000 per month by 2025, up from about 14,000 per month at the start of this year.

The differences between Ukraine and Israel mean they will restock at different speeds, making it difficult to predict if or when ammunition production falls short. Unlike Ukraine, Israel has one of the most advanced and well-resourced militaries in the world, and shares deep ties with American companies who produce military hardware.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is in the early stages of trying to build ties with the U.S. defense industry.

A defense industry conference in Kyiv this month was meant to forge some of those connections that would allow Ukraine to begin producing more weapons at home.

American and Ukrainian officials are also working on another high-level meetup between the industry leaders in Washington in the coming weeks, according to two people with knowledge of the planning, who requested anonymity to acknowledge the ongoing work.

The Biden administration is also expected to send Congress a $100 billion supplemental request as early as Thursday, including Israel and Ukraine aid, that would span an entire year, along with beefed-up security along the southern U.S. border.

Members of Congress have made the point this week that even if the Pentagon doesn’t come through with the money to support Israel, they’ll make sure that the military is supplied.

Visiting Israel over the weekend with a group of U.S. lawmakers, Sen. Chuck Schumer pledged that the upper chamber “will not just talk, we will act.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who joined Schumer’s Israel trip, said he relayed Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s aid request to the White House on Tuesday.

That list, with $10 billion or more in hardware, includes Iron Dome interceptors, joint direct attack munition conversion kits, which turn unguided bombs into precision munitions, and other weaponry Kelly didn’t name for Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza and forthcoming ground offensive.

“They’re going to need munitions,” Kelly told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday, adding that in two Hamas airstrikes during his visit, Israel launched dozens of Iron Dome interceptors. “They expended a lot of rounds, and they’re doing that every single day.”

Israel’s need for precision weapons will likely remain constant, as its military relies heavily on precision airstrikes, and will only increase in the event of a ground incursion by the Israel Defense Forces.

Despite assurances from U.S. leaders, the war in Israel has led to some nervousness in Europe over what it may mean for the American aid for Ukraine.

In an interview with POLITICO during a visit to Washington on Wednesday, British Secretary of State for Defense Grant Shapps warned that Kyiv is still critically important.

“Let’s not forget about Ukraine,” Shapps said. “It’s really important that we keep the world’s focus there as well. We can do this. We can focus on both Europe and the Middle East at the same time and I just wanted to be here to work on some of that coordination.”

The specter of a ground operation in Gaza, meanwhile, presents a whole new set of challenges and a need for certain types of weapons, not necessarily being sent by the U.S. now.

The fight will require more precision munitions fired by aircraft and helicopters, along with precision artillery and plenty of munitions fired by tanks and armored vehicles in the streets.

Fighting through dense urban streets still populated by civilians “is the hardest kind of combat there is on the planet,” Frank McKenzie, a retired Marine Corps general who served as the chief of U.S. Central Command until last year, said in an interview.

If Israel intends to follow through on its promises to destroy Hamas, the battle won’t soon be over, requiring consistent, long-term support from the U.S. and the defense industry to keep up with what is expected to be a slow, grinding fight.

“It’s an environment where all the advantages of a modern, highly capable, high tech force are muted” by the close quarters of the enemy and the preparations Hamas has undoubtedly made to Gaza in anticipation of an Israeli invasion, he said.

“It will be a combined arms battle. You’ll have tanks in the streets, you’ll have armored breaching vehicles in the streets, you’ll have artillery behind you that will hopefully be able to fire very accurate rounds. But it’s gonna be as tough a fight as you can imagine.”

Joe Gould contributed to this report.

POLITICO