security

The airline has shared advice for passengers to help prevent delays during security checks

British Airways has advice to help passengers ‘avoid delays’ at the airport. The airline’s website shares the latest guidance and travel updates for customers. It also answers frequently asked questions to help passengers have the smoothest possible experience on travel days.

In the baggage FAQ section, the airline has offered a tip for anyone travelling with medication in their hand luggage. British Airways said it recommends that passengers carry a copy of their prescription for any medication they are carrying.

The advice said: “We recommend you carry a copy of the prescription for your medication to avoid delays at security or customs.” Passengers are advised to carry any essential medications in their hand luggage.

British Airways explained: “If you need to take regular medication, it’s important to pack enough essential medication for your personal use on board – and for the first few days of your journey – into your smaller under-seat item of hand baggage. This is in case your hold baggage is delayed for any reason.”

British Airways adds that this medication shouldn’t be packed in any larger cabin bags. “Avoid packing medication in your larger cabin bag as you may be asked to put it into the hold on busy flights.

“Additional medication for personal use at your destination can also be packed in your checked baggage, so long as you are carrying enough for a few days in your hand baggage in case of any eventuality.”

There are allowances for passengers who need to carry medicines exceeding 100ml. Gov.uk explains: “You’re allowed to carry the following in your hand luggage: essential medicines of more than 100ml, including liquid dietary foodstuffs and inhalers or medical equipment, if it’s essential for your journey.

“You’ll need to carry proof that the medication is prescribed to you (for example, a letter from your doctor or a copy of your prescription) if it’s both: in liquid form and in a container larger than 100ml. You do not need to show proof if the medication is either: in tablet form or liquid in a container that’s 100ml or smaller.”

Gov.uk also shares advice for any passengers travelling with medicine containing a controlled drug. The guidance states: “You must carry medicine containing a controlled drug with you in your hand luggage when entering or leaving the UK.

It may be taken away from you at the border if you cannot prove it was prescribed for you.”

June 30 (Asia Today) — South Korea is seeking to connect the growth of its commercial space industry with stronger national security capabilities as emerging technologies blur the boundaries between the private and public sectors.

The expansion of security concerns into space, drones and artificial intelligence has increased the importance of the Korea AeroSpace Administration, which is responsible for developing the country’s aerospace industry.

The agency is working with the National Intelligence Service and other government organizations on satellite cybersecurity and broader aerospace security policies.

Hyunjoon Kwon, director general for aerospace policy at the agency, told Asia Today in an interview Friday that space is no longer solely a scientific field.

“Space has moved beyond science to become a domain that can affect both security and industry,” Kwon said. “We need a mutually reinforcing relationship between the market and the public sector.”

Asked how the global space security environment is changing, Kwon said competition is no longer limited to the number of satellites a country possesses.

“The key question is how reliably a country can use and protect satellite communications and satellite imagery,” he said.

Space-based services have been used directly in military operations and critical national infrastructure since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, Kwon said.

Countries also face increasingly complex threats, including GPS jamming and spoofing, disruptions to satellite communications, cyberattacks and the collision or uncontrolled reentry of objects in space.

Kwon said the agency is developing a national space situational awareness system to strengthen South Korea’s ability to monitor and predict space-related risks.

It is also preparing a cybersecurity response framework to protect space-based services used by the private sector, government and military.

South Korea has rapidly accumulated capabilities in launch vehicles, satellite development and satellite data applications, Kwon said. Its military space capabilities have also expanded.

However, the country still needs to strengthen its domestic production of critical materials, components and software, he said.

Other areas requiring improvement include space situational awareness, satellite cybersecurity and the creation of a sustainable commercial market for space services.

“That is why the growth of private space companies and greater independence in core technologies are becoming even more important,” Kwon said.

Cooperation among the private sector, government and military has entered a stage of institutional development since the establishment of the Korea AeroSpace Administration, he said.

The cooperative channels include a future defense science and technology policy council with the Defense Ministry, an aerospace project memorandum with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and a satellite cybersecurity consultative body with the National Intelligence Service.

Kwon said the cooperation now extends beyond individual projects to include policy, technology and security.

The agency is seeking to create a structure in which private-sector technology is connected to government and national security requirements, while public and defense demand supports the growth of commercial companies.

Kwon also discussed the government’s recently announced strategy to foster innovative companies in emerging security industries.

“Aerospace is a strategic field that influences both security and industry, extending beyond the boundaries of science and technology,” he said.

Satellite communications, satellite data, unmanned aircraft and space materials and components have significant commercial growth potential while also meeting direct security needs, Kwon said.

The agency plans to focus on establishing a cycle in which the creation of new industries strengthens national security capabilities and security demand encourages further technological innovation.

The plans include developing core technologies for a space data center under the K-Moonshot initiative and building a national platform that will make satellite information available for broader use.

The agency also plans to develop artificial intelligence-powered unmanned aircraft and electric or hybrid vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260629010010198

Police and personnel from private security firms have been deployed across South Africa because of fears that anti-immigration protests could turn violent as President Cyril Ramaphosa urged those planning to take part to do so without “intimidation, threats or ultimatums”.

The planned protests mark an unofficial deadline set by campaigners for all undocumented foreigner to leave the country.

Many have already fled to escape violence and intimidation. South African police say 25,000 have been repatriated so far. Most are from other African countries.

One undocumented Malawian told the BBC he was “happy to be going back” but “heartbroken” to be leaving behind four young children.

Johannesburg, where one of the protests is planned, is unusually quiet.

All the shops in the vicinity of where marchers are due to gather are closed, while police visibility is high on the city’s major streets.

Police said that five people were arrested in Johannesburg’s biggest township, Soweto, for allegedly looting a foreign-owned shop.

Five people were also arrested for allegedly breaking into a tuck shop in Hammarsdale in KwaZulu-Natal province.

Many businesses in central Durban, the main city in the province, are shut.

Ramaphosa has repeatedly warned demonstrators to act peacefully and responsibly, while also accepting the need for immigration reforms.

“Some foreign nationals who live in South Africa are here lawfully,” he reminded citizens in his weekly newsletter, external.

“They work, study, raise families, invest in our economy and contribute positively to our society. They too are entitled to the protection of our laws and our Constitution.

“The right to protest and freedom of expression does not allow people to threaten or intimidate others, or to engage in acts of vandalism or violence,” he wrote.

There are more than three million documented foreign nationals in South Africa, according to official figures.

Ahead of the deadline, thousands of migrants have been awaiting processing in temporary camps for several weeks out of fear for their safety.

The United States’ head of homeland security said he “danced a happy dance” when Iran were eliminated from the World Cup.

Iran missed out on qualifying from the group stage on goal difference after having a stoppage-time winner against Egypt disallowed for a marginal offside.

Coach Amir Ghalenoei said his team were the “most oppressed” at the tournament amid the backdrop of the country’s conflict with the US and Israel.

Iran’s training base was switched from Arizona to Tijuana in Mexico before the World Cup began and they faced travel restrictions throughout.

Despite Saturday’s 1-1 draw with Egypt, Iran still had a chance of qualifying as one of the eight best third-placed teams.

But their elimination was confirmed when Algeria and Austria played out a dramatic 3-3 draw on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said: “I’m just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back.

“I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas and said they could leave the US soil, and I might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance.”

He added: “There wasn’t a single team that we had to spend more time dealing with than Iran.”

Iran were only permitted to enter the US the day before their first two matches and had to leave on the same day as the game, under the terms of their visas.

Those restrictions were eased for their final group game in Seattle, allowing them to arrive two days early, but they again had to return to Tijuana after Saturday’s match.

Iran coach Ghalenoei said that the US, co-hosts of the World Cup with Canada and Mexico, had “treated us very unfairly” and that his squad had been given “less than half” the training window it needed to prepare.

Iran captain Mehdi Taremi added: “This kind of tension undermines the joy of the World Cup. I felt the tension from the first moment we arrived.”

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement authorities are preparing for one of Washington’s largest and most complex security operations as the nation’s capital gears up to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the nation’s freedom.

With rising political violence, including recent incidents near the White House, and a president who enjoys being at the center of public pomp yet has repeatedly faced attempts on his life, a major security challenge awaits.

“It comes as no surprise to you that D.C. on a normal day is a target-rich environment,” said Darren B. Cox assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Washington field office at a recent news conference detailing the security preparations. “We are prepared for any threats.”

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to visit Washington in the coming weeks for the festivities.

The throngs will be joined by thousands of law enforcement officers and agents and 5,000 National Guard troops, along with military-style vehicles and other hardware they don’t often see on the streets of America.

Authorities are preparing for a major security operation

The largest crowds are expected July 4, with multiple events happening simultaneously, including the Great American State Fair, a showcase for each state and a signature attraction of the celebrations that stretches across the National Mall.

The annual fireworks display that night is designated a National Security Special Event for the first time by the Department of Homeland Security, the highest classification for federal security coordination.

For visitors, that means strict ID requirements, long lines and magnetometers, similar to air travel security. Snipers are also expected to be deployed at some events.

Flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which is across the Potomac River from Washington, will be suspended longer than in other years because of the scope of the celebrations — from noon on July 4 until the next day. Other America 250 events that include flyovers or parachute jumps could prompt more flight disruptions.

The FBI, Secret Service, U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Park Police and D.C. National Guard have all been involved in security coordination for the events. At the news conference earlier this month, equipment that could be deployed to guard the city was on display, including BearCat armored SWAT vehicles, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, known as MRAPs, as well as communication vans and FBI diving boats.

“Our protective model is meant to adjust to any type of direct or indirect threats that we come across,” said Tara McLeese, special agent in charge of the Secret Service Washington field office. “I can assure you that we have no lack of imagination as to the potential threats out there.”

Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard II, interim commander of the D.C. National Guard, said the planning had been underway for months and included rehearsals.

Blanchard said the Guard members would continue the roles they have served the last 10 months as part of a deployment to the city President Trump says is meant to fight crime. Blanchard highlighted that guard members, including military police officers, would be helping with duties like traffic and crowd control as well as responding to emergencies around the events.

President Trump, who has already attended several events leading up to July 4, including the kickoff rally last week launching the Great American State Fair, has said on Truth Social that he would hold a rally on the National Mall.

Speaking at a news conference Monday updating the upcoming security preparations, Cox reiterated that “at this time we are not tracking any credible threats related to the July 4 event, but we always remain vigilant.”

Recent violence has shaped the threat picture

The festivities come at a fraught moment, with recent political violence creating a complex threat environment for authorities. One man, Cole Tomas Allen, has been charged with attempting to assassinate the president after he sprinted past security at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner in April. Allen has pleaded not guilty.

In the following weeks, two men on two separate occasions opened fired at Secret Service officers, the service said. Each incident happened in the vicinity of the White House.

More recently, the FBI announced it had thwarted a planned attack targeting Trump’s UFC cage-fighting show at the White House. Several suspects have been arrested in that case.

Security was already enhanced on the National Mall ahead of the launch of festivities, as Trump claimed without providing evidence that vandals had damaged the Reflecting Pool that he had recently renovated.

Matt Dallek, a political scientist at George Washington University who studies extremism, said Trump posed a unique security challenge because he is “both an accelerant and a target of political violence.”

The nation’s bicentennial offers a historical parallel

Observers draw some parallels to the 1976 bicentennial. The nation was coming off Watergate and Vietnam, and 10 months before the celebration there were two assassination attempts against then-President Ford.

“There was a lot of sourness in the country in ’76, a lot of cynicism about the direction of the country,” Dallek said. But both Ford and his Democratic opponent Jimmy Carter understood the threat political divisions posed and “were looking to bring down the level of vitriol.”

Angelyn Spaulding Flowers, professor of Homeland Security & Administration of Justice at the University of the District of Columbia, said the amount of security was unparalleled for the city, citing the ongoing and open-ended National Guard presence that has flooded Washington with additional security patrols for months.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Strikes come a day after fighters armed with guns and explosives killed three soldiers in Karachi.

Pakistan’s security forces have carried out a ground operation and air strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in response to deadly attacks, killing 29 fighters, officials have said.

In a post on social media, Pakistani Minister of Information Attaullah Tarar said the operation was launched in response to multiple attacks by armed groups across the country.

“Three targets in Paktia, Paktika and Kunar were destroyed during precision strikes,” Tarar said on X, referring to three eastern Afghanistan provinces.

There was no immediate response from Afghanistan.

Pakistan has witnessed a surge in attacks targeting police and security forces in recent years.

Authorities have blamed the Pakistan Taliban, known by the acronym TTP, and allied armed groups for most of the violence.

It comes a day after fighters armed with guns and explosives targeted the regional headquarters of the paramilitary Rangers in the southern port city of Karachi, killing three soldiers.

Security forces killed three attackers and arrested another assailant, whom the military identified as an Afghan national in wounded condition.

Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a breakaway faction of the Pakistan Taliban, claimed responsibility for the Karachi attack in a statement on Saturday night.

Tarar said Pakistan’s latest operation along the Afghan border targeted hideouts and safe havens of the Pakistan Taliban.

The Pakistan Taliban are a separate armed group from the Afghan Taliban, although the two are allies.

The Afghan Taliban returned to power in neighbouring Afghanistan in 2021.

The latest operations are likely to further strain the already tense relations between Islamabad and Kabul.

Sunday’s cross-border strikes and ground operation came less than three weeks after Pakistan’s military launched air strikes on what it said were fighter group hideouts in Afghanistan.

They ended about a month of relative calm following what Islamabad had described as an “open war” between the neighbouring countries, despite international efforts to broker a lasting peace.

The escalation follows months of tit-for-tat military action between the countries.

Hundreds of people have been killed in cross-border fighting since February, when Afghanistan launched retaliatory strikes after Pakistan carried out air strikes inside Afghan territory.

Multiple rounds of internationally mediated peace talks have failed to secure a lasting ceasefire.

China also hosted the two sides in April, and Beijing later said that Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed not to escalate their conflict and to explore a solution.

Since last year, Pakistan has carried out multiple strikes along the border and inside Afghanistan, targeting alleged hideouts of the Pakistan Taliban and other armed groups.

Pakistan accuses Afghanistan’s Taliban government of harbouring fighters who carry out deadly attacks inside Pakistan, especially the Pakistan Taliban.

Kabul denies the accusations.

Elite security personnel carry out a large-scale operation at dawn in the Green Zone and several neighbourhoods in Baghdad, security source says.

Several Iraqi politicians, lawmakers and officials have been arrested on corruption charges, Iraqi state-run media report.

Several people, including members of parliament “whose immunity had been lifted and officials whose names appeared in … confessions”, were arrested early on Sunday in the capital, Baghdad, the Iraqi News Agency reported, quoting a security source.

It was not immediately clear who had been arrested. There was no immediate official statement on the arrests from the Iraqi government or security forces.

A security source told Al Jazeera that elite Iraqi security forces carried out a large-scale arrest operation at dawn in the fortified International Zone (Green Zone) and several neighbourhoods in Baghdad.

The source said the arrests were carried out by the Counter Terrorism Service and were based on statements provided by Adnan al-Jumaili, deputy oil minister, after his arrest last month on corruption charges.

Iraq’s new prime minister, Ali al-Zaidi, has pledged to fight corruption and mismanagement that have plagued Iraq for decades.

Authorities seized about $86m in cash this month that was allegedly part of the corruption case against al-Jumaili.

The Associated Press news agency reported that seven people were arrested on Sunday, including five members of parliament. It cited a security agency report it obtained. The AP said some of those arrested were from the political bloc of former Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.

During November’s parliamentary elections, al-Sudani’s bloc won the largest share of seats, but he did not return as prime minister. He stepped aside amid a deadlock in the Coordination Framework, a group of Shia parties allied with Iran that brought al-Sudani to power. They disagreed for months over their preferred candidate for the post.

Egypt’s foreign ministry used carefully calibrated language on Monday to restate a familiar position: unwavering support for Sudan’s “unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and for its “national institutions, particularly the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).” Framed as a rejection of “parallel entities” seeking to form an alternative government in exile, the statement is another sign that Cairo is tying its Sudan policy ever more tightly to General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan and the SAF as the country’s civil war grinds into yet another year.

Behind the diplomatic phrasing lies a blunt political choice. Since the outbreak of fighting between the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in April 2023, Egypt has emerged as one of the army’s main regional backers, both politically and—according to multiple reports—quietly in security terms. Egyptian officials insist they are defending Sudanese state institutions against militia fragmentation and external meddling, a message they repeat in multilateral forums and joint communiqués with Burhan’s Transitional Sovereignty Council.

From Cairo, the stakes in Sudan are seen as existential rather than abstract. Egyptian analysts routinely describe the stability of their southern neighbour as a vital national security concern, citing fears of refugee flows, arms smuggling and jihadist safe havens along the porous border. Control of the Nile is an even deeper driver: since the 2019 fall of Omar al‑Bashir, Egypt has intensified security and military coordination with Khartoum to counter Ethiopia’s upstream Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and preserve its historic water share.

There is also a clear regime‑security affinity, however misguided that affinity might be. Burhan, a career officer who trained in Cairo and maintains close ties with Egyptian generals, represents a familiar authoritarian model for President Abdel Fattah el‑Sisi, himself a former general who came to power after a coup in 2013. Supporting the SAF fits Egypt’s long‑standing pattern of siding with Sudan’s army “whoever is in charge of it,” and buttresses Cairo’s broader preference for strong central militaries over messy civilian transitions across the region.

Officially, Egypt insists it is not a party to Sudan’s war. Sisi has repeatedly pledged “non‑interference,” and Cairo frames its role as limited to mediation, humanitarian aid, and hosting millions of Sudanese fleeing the conflict. Egyptian troops captured by the RSF at Merowe airbase in April 2023 were described as participants in pre‑scheduled joint exercises, not combat operations, a spin that few international observers bought.

The line between deterrent presence and de facto involvement has become increasingly blurred. Analysts note years of intensifying joint drills, intelligence cooperation and arms ties between the two militaries since 2019. Think‑tanks and regional media have reported unconfirmed Egyptian airstrikes on RSF positions and possible targeting of gold‑mining camps in northern Sudan, amid allegations by RSF leaders that Cairo is providing drones and tactical support to the SAF—claims Egypt denies. The pattern points towards at the very least a protective security umbrella for Burhan’s forces, far beyond the strict neutrality Cairo proclaims.

Yet in Burhan Egypt is backing a very risky partner. By hinging its Sudan strategy almost entirely on the SAF and Burhan’s sovereignty council, Egypt is betting on a man and an institution that look increasingly incapable of reunifying the country. The war has left tens of thousands dead, displaced over 14 million people, and pushed parts of Sudan towards famine, with the army losing and regaining territory in a grinding stalemate against the RSF. Burhan’s own legitimacy is deeply contested: he led the 2021 coup that derailed a fragile civilian‑military power‑sharing agreement, and his government is widely seen by pro‑democracy groups as a continuation of military dominance rather than a path to elections.

Cairo’s categorical rejection of “parallel governments” sounds like a defence of state unity, but in practice it risks delegitimising genuine civilian coalitions seeking to organise outside the SAF‑RSF binary. By equating Sudan’s “national institutions” with the existing military leadership, Egypt narrows the political horizon and sidelines the broad civilian forces that led the 2018–2019 uprising—precisely the actors most likely to provide a sustainable, inclusive settlement. If the SAF continues to fragment on the battlefield or loses further territorial control, Cairo may find that its red lines have locked it into defending a shrinking power centre with dwindling popular backing.

There is also a long‑term reputational cost. Egypt positions itself as a mediator through formats such as the “Quad”, and hosts conferences of Sudanese civil and political actors in Cairo. But as long as its public diplomacy is tethered to explicit promises that it “will not be lax or late in supporting the legitimate Sudanese government” under Burhan, that positioning is scarcely credible. On the contrary, Egypt has decisively and actively allied itself to Sudan’s military junta.

A savvy shopper has shared the travel essentials she found in Poundland, including 100ml travel-size suncreams and shampoos that are perfect for those travelling with only hand luggage

The prospect of travelling with only hand luggage can fill many holidaymakers with anxiety, prompting them to fork out for hold luggage when their liquids won’t fit in a carry-on bag. The reason, of course, is that when passing through airport security, liquids are restricted to 100ml — which can be a real headache, given that many suncreams come in 250ml bottles, or, even more frustratingly, 125ml — just over the limit.

However, a savvy traveller named Sham has flagged that Poundland stocks “100ml suncreams,” meaning you’ll have “no stress at security” as your liquids will be fully compliant with rules and regulations. Getting through airport security with hand luggage only can actually be a doddle with the right products in tow — and also spares you the nail-biting wait at the baggage carousel, desperately hoping your suitcase has made it to your destination in one piece.

She noted that the mini products are priced at £2, quipping: “We know Poundland’s not all a pound anymore.” Sham revealed that the store stocks suncream, sprays, and even travel-sized shampoos and conditioners — ideal for those heading away long enough to need a hair wash.

She also spotted towel clips for just £1, so you needn’t worry about your towel taking flight if your destination turns out to be a touch on the breezy side. Rounding things off, there was a Malibu fake tan that Sham said she was keen to try before her holiday, adding that she’d heard great things about it — and at just £2, it seemed well worth a go.

In the comments section, one user wrote: “Ah, I need to get to Poundland! Going away soon, so these would be perfect.”

A second chimed in: “Buying s**** to take on holiday is the most British thing ever. You don’t need half that s***, it will be left in the bag in the hotel the whole holiday.”

However, Sham hit back: “It saves a right packet taking the small ones, perfect amount for your hol.” And there’s no denying that SPF is absolutely essential.

NHS advice on keeping yourself safe in the sun

Sunburn increases your risk of skin cancer. And it does not just happen on holiday. You can burn in the UK, even when it’s cloudy.

There’s no safe or healthy way to get a tan. A tan does not protect your skin from the sun’s harmful effects. Aim to strike a balance between protecting yourself from the sun and getting enough vitamin D from sunlight.

Spend time in the shade when the sun is strongest. In the UK, this is between 11am and 3pm from March to October.

You can also check the UV index on a weather app or website. If it’s three or higher, consider protecting your skin.

Make sure you:

• spend time in the shade between 11am and 3pm
• never burn
• cover up with suitable clothing and sunglasses
• take extra care with children
• keep babies under six months out of direct sunlight
• use at least factor 30 sunscreen – make sure to use enough and re-apply frequently

Do not rely on sunscreen alone to protect yourself from the sun. Wear suitable clothing and spend time in the shade when the sun’s at its hottest.

When buying sunscreen, the label should have:

• a sun protection factor (SPF) of at least 30 to protect against UVB
• at least four-star UVA protection

UVA protection can also be indicated by the letters “UVA” in a circle, which indicates that it meets the EU standard.

Make sure the sunscreen is not past its expiry date. This is marked by a symbol of an open jar, an M and a number, which shows how many months the sunscreen will last once it’s been opened. Do not spend any longer in the sun than you would without sunscreen.

June 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea plans to create an investment and procurement system aimed at producing homegrown security technology companies comparable to U.S. data analytics company Palantir Technologies, the government said Friday.

The Ministry of SMEs and Startups announced the strategy with the Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration during a meeting on future security innovation companies at the Blue House.

The plan seeks to accelerate the transfer of advanced civilian technology into national defense and security.

The government aims to develop five security technology companies valued at more than 1 trillion won ($651 million) and 50 companies with annual sales exceeding 100 billion won ($65.1 million) by 2030.

It will designate five strategic sectors covering drones and robotics, defense artificial intelligence and semiconductors, advanced sensors and materials, aerospace technology and cybersecurity and quantum communications.

Officials described the initiative as an effort to cultivate a “Korean Palantir,” referring to the U.S. company known for software that integrates and analyzes large volumes of defense and intelligence data.

The phrase is a policy description rather than the name of a company the government plans to establish.

Investment vehicle modeled on In-Q-Tel

The ministry plans to establish a government-backed investment organization modeled on In-Q-Tel, the nonprofit strategic investor created to support technologies relevant to U.S. intelligence agencies.

The proposed organization would make direct investments in early-stage security technology companies to address funding shortages.

The government also plans to support the establishment of a technology-focused asset management company tentatively called Korea Strategic Technology Partners.

Through government and private investment vehicles, officials aim to create as much as 10 trillion won ($6.5 billion) in strategic technology financing over the next five years.

The money would provide growth capital to startups and smaller companies developing technologies with potential defense, intelligence, aerospace or cybersecurity applications.

Faster research and procurement

South Korea also plans to introduce a special research and development program modeled on the U.S. Other Transaction Authority system.

The system would connect research, testing and government purchasing under a faster contracting process intended for rapidly changing technologies.

Selected companies could receive as much as 10 billion won ($6.5 million) each over five years.

The Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration plan to create procurement systems capable of placing some advanced weapons or technologies into initial service within one year.

The government also plans to expand access to defense data through a catalog showing what information may be available to approved companies.

Aerospace authorities will support the development of core technology for a national space data center and platforms that allow businesses to use satellite information.

The strategy reflects the government’s view that traditional defense procurement moves too slowly for technologies such as artificial intelligence, drones, robotics and cybersecurity software.

Support for smaller technology companies

Minister of SMEs and Startups Han Seongsook said the global security industry is shifting rapidly from traditional hardware toward software, data and artificial intelligence.

“The government will provide bold and rapid support so startups and small venture companies with flexible and creative technologies can become leaders in security innovation,” Han said.

The government also plans to protect companies’ intellectual property rights and allow technologies developed through public programs to be adapted for civilian markets.

Officials said the strategy would help smaller companies enter a defense industry that has traditionally been dominated by large manufacturers and hardware-centered weapons programs.

The ministries plan to form an interagency committee, pursue special legislation and revise contracting rules to support the initiative.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260626010009467

GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton pleaded guilty on Friday to illegally retaining classified information, sealing a deal with federal prosecutors that could allow him to avoid a prison term.

Bolton, who became an outspoken critic of President Trump after serving in the Republican’s first administration, is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 28 by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Greenbelt, Md.

Bolton pleaded guilty to a single count of illegally retaining classified information. His plea agreement with the Justice Department may enable him to avoid time behind bars, but the judge ultimately will decide his punishment.

The plea agreement recommends capping any prison sentence at five years but the judge isn’t bound by that part of the deal. Bolton can withdraw his guilty plea if the judge issues a longer prison sentence or a fine greater than $2.25 million.

Bolton was charged last October with 18 counts of either retaining or disseminating classified information, including diary-like notes that he shared with relatives as he wrote a memoir about his career in government.

Other Trump adversaries have been charged with federal crimes during his second term in the White House. While some of those cases have collapsed under judicial scrutiny and amid claims of political retribution, Bolton didn’t mount a vigorous defense against his charges before cutting a deal.

FBI agents searched Bolton’s Maryland home and Washington, D.C., office last August, but the investigation began before Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

Bolton served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before getting pushed out in 2019. He later published a book called “The Room Where it Happened” that presented an unflattering portrait of Trump’s leadership.

The Trump administration fought unsuccessfully to block the book’s release, claiming it contained classified information that could jeopardize national security. Trump derided Bolton as a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

Bolton’s indictment focused on notes that he shared with his wife and daughter rather than the contents of his book. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that relations between the United States and its gulf Arab partners are rock solid, despite fears by some of them that they might be left out of discussions aimed at ending the war with Iran.

Rubio used a three-day, three-nation trip to the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain this week to try to convince all the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council that the Trump administration does indeed have their backs in negotiations to end the war President Trump and Israel launched on Feb. 28.

That conflict sharply curtailed the region’s oil exports and saw several gulf countries take direct retaliatory Iranian missile and drone hits.

“They’ve shared with us some very concrete concerns, ideas,” Rubio said in Bahrain, the last stop on the trip. “And when I say concern, the biggest concern is that they really just want to be informed every step along the way as we enter these negotiations at both the technical and political levels.

“We want them to be involved and we want the views of all these countries to be reflected,” he said. “We don’t want to and will not be making any decisions or commitments that in any way undermines the prosperity, stability or security of our gulf partners.”

Although the U.S. and the gulf council members — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — eventually released a joint statement after the meeting that extolled areas of agreement about the end goals of the Iran deal, there were small signs of potential discontent.

The joint statement said the two sides “stressed the need to maintain momentum and unity as negotiations proceed toward a more permanent end to hostilities and the shared objective of preventing Iran from ever developing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

They also expressed opposition to any attempt by Iran to impose tolls or fees, or assert control over the Strait of Hormuz. They welcomed an Omani initiative to create a safe lane to evacuate stranded sailors from the waterway and stressed that any economic benefit Iran might realize “is conditional and reversible, contingent on Iran’s compliance” with the temporary agreement and a final deal.

The joint statement painted a rosy picture, yet the council secretary, Gen. Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, suggested in a statement that doubts remain.

He said it was emphasized during the meeting that any future understandings or arrangements must incorporate the requirements of the gulf council countries to safeguard their interests and ensure “their security and stability.” His statement, released by the group, hinted that the gulf council members felt snubbed in the earlier talks.

“Such arrangements must be based on the principles of international law, respect for state sovereignty, good neighborliness, and non-interference in internal affairs, thereby contributing to the consolidation of regional security and stability,” he said.

Before Rubio spoke to the group, the meeting host, Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, said that although the memorandum of understanding is welcome, many questions remain outstanding.

“While this progress is encouraging, it is critically important that Iran fully adheres to its obligations,” including under the memorandum, he said.

He said that means preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preserving freedom of navigation, ending all missile and drone attacks, halting support for proxy groups and abandoning attempts to interfere with Iran’s neighbors.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

Authors: Dr Soumyodeep Deb & Aung Kyaw*

Myanmar’s president Min Aung Hlaing is currently on a 5-day state visit to India on the invitation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. This is his first foreign visit after the recent election where he was elected as the new president of Myanmar. However, the elections that brought him to power were not democratic in nature. Therefore, “Min Aung Hlaing is not Myanmar’s legitimate president,” as noted by Mercy Chriesty Barends, a member of the Indonesian Parliament and chairperson of the ASEAN Parliamentarian on Human Rights. He oversaw a campaign of widespread crimes against his own people after masterminding a bloody coup that toppled a democratically elected government. As a result, APHR has asked India to condemn Min Aung’s government as undemocratic and illegal. Thus, the question of why India, which claims to be the largest democracy in the world, is dealing with an undemocratic administration that is accused of violating its own citizens’ human rights emerges.

The idea of democracy and human right violation had been India’s central position during the 1988 military coup in Myanmar. The Indian government had cut ties with the then military junta. India’s idealistic position had sidetracked India-Myanmar relations and led China to occupy the strategic sphere in India’s immediate neighborhood. Chinese investment and trade with Myanmar grew exponentially with the junta purchasing military hardware worth $1 billion from Beijing in 1989 one of the largest weapons deals in Myanmar’s history. This had led China to exert its influence on Myanmar. For Beijing the geo-strategic location of Myanmar having access to the Indian Ocean was of strategic interest. Enhancement of Chinese influence in Myanmar had a security implication for India as China used Myanmar to train major northeastern Indian insurgent groups like NSCN, ULFA etc. Thus, India’s rupturing of relationship with Myanmar after 1989 on idealistic grounds led China to exploit major gain at India’s immediate neighborhood.

This had led India to recalibrate its strategy towards Myanmar post the 2021 coup when India took a more pragmatic stand. The Indian ministry of external affairs had categorically pointed that any development in Myanmar has implications for India so India’s policy must serve its strategic interest. Therefore, we have seen India engaging both the military junta and the ethnic armed groups trying to balance its ties with both the parties. Since the coup India has been providing steady military assistant to the junta in form of military hardware and spares. It has also engaged the various ethnic armed groups by sending officials across the border and by inviting some of the groups to New Delhi for a conference. This makes it very evident that rather than maintaining the moral superiority of democracy, India is striving to further its strategic interests. The support to the rebel groups like the Arakan Army (AA) which controls a major part of strategic Rakhine state. After seizing control of majority of the state the Arakan Army pushed the initiative to have dialogue with the military junta. The AA had always held the ambition of having greater strategic autonomy in the Rakhine state. Thus, India’s engagement with the AA by sending government officials over to Myanmar signals that it wants to have strategic relation with the AA as that would enhance its influence and uphold India’s economic and trade ambitions. 

For India, the geographical location of Myanmar holds a great strategic significance. It shares a 1,693 kms of border and is seen as India’s gateway to the ASEAN. This had led India to invest heavily on major infrastructure projects in Myanmar. The Kaladan Multimodal Transit Corridor and Sittwe Port are two of India’s largest projects in Rakhine and Chin state of Myanmar. This project is seen to give India’s landlocked northeastern states access to Myanmar’s Sittwe port. This project is also seen as a counter to China’s Kyaukphyu Port at the Rakhine state. This has made the relation with Arakan Army of geo-strategic importance. The other major project that India is working on is to physically connect itself ASEAN via the India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway. This project would give India land access to the two ASEAN states which can further be expanded to other nations like Vietnam. Although the projects are currently stalled due to the civil war, India is working with both the ethnic armed groups and the government to safeguard and fast-track the projects.

Thus, the recent visit of Min Aung Hlaing to India shows that India has chosen pragmatism over idealism. New Delhi has kept itself away from the nature of democracy in Myanmar and is trying to engage based on strategic interest. During the press briefing the Indian foreign sectary had pointed that India’s engagement with Myanmar is not based on Myanmar’s internal political arrangement. India does not want to disengage based on internal political dynamics as history has shown that other powers which has no interest in democracy would eventually take the advantage. This statement although has not mentioned China but was directed towards it. Therefore, the visit led to the signing of various agreements and MOUs between both the states. Myanmar has also reiterated that it won’t allow its territory to be used against anti-India activities. The recent advancement by the Myanmar Army is further leading it to consolidate its power and capture grounds. With the new conscript law, it can funnel additional troops to keep its advancement. Further being supported by Russia, China and India the firepower of the junta is superior to the rebel forces. This has also led India to recalibrate its Myanmar policy by engaging the current powerful junta and strategic rebel forces like the AA in Rakhine state.

Therefore, it can be argued that the growing India-China competition has made India move its Myanmar strategy towards pragmatism from idealism. Unlike in 1988 when India lost its strategic foothold to China in Myanmar due to its idealistic stand, the situation has now altered as the competition grows. But as a democracy, India must tread carefully on this fine line and bring up important issues of human rights and democracy in Myanmar.

Bio: Aung Kyaw is a recent graduate from Lingnan University majoring in Global Development and Sustainability and minor in Sociology. His research interests are politics of southeast asia, peace and conflict studies, social development, social issues in southeast asia. kyawkyawaung@ln.hk

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) urged Congress to boost the payroll tax cap to save Social Security benefits, according to an op-ed piece published by the New York Times on Tuesday.

As the law currently stands, the payroll

The disruption caused by the Iran war and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz has prompted countries around the world to reconsider their energy security strategies. Governments that suffered economic damage from supply shortages and soaring prices are now looking to build larger strategic oil and gas reserves, potentially creating demand for hundreds of millions of additional barrels over the coming years.

Hormuz Crisis Exposed Energy Vulnerabilities

The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies for more than three months, sending shockwaves through energy markets.

Brent crude prices surged to nearly $120 a barrel as import-dependent economies faced rising fuel costs, supply uncertainty and growing inflationary pressures.

Emergency Reserves Helped Stabilize Markets

One of the key factors preventing a deeper energy crisis was the release of strategic petroleum reserves.

All 32 members of the International Energy Agency agreed to a record release of 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles, helping offset supply disruptions and ease pressure on global markets.

The coordinated action highlighted the importance of maintaining large emergency reserves during major geopolitical crises.

China’s Stockpile Strategy Pays Off

China emerged from the crisis in a stronger position than many other major importers due to its massive strategic petroleum reserve.

The country has spent years building what is believed to be the world’s largest emergency oil stockpile, estimated at more than one billion barrels.

During the conflict, China significantly reduced crude imports, allowing it to avoid buying large volumes of oil at elevated prices and limiting the economic impact of the disruption.

Import-Dependent Economies Face Greater Pressure

Countries with limited strategic reserves faced much greater challenges.

Several Asian economies relied on emergency measures such as:

• Fuel subsidies
• Consumption restrictions
• Reduced working hours
• Energy-saving programs

The experience exposed vulnerabilities among countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies without substantial emergency stockpiles.

India Eyes Larger Strategic Reserves

India is among the countries most likely to expand its emergency storage capacity.

As the world’s third-largest oil importer and one of the fastest-growing energy consumers, India currently holds reserves covering only a small fraction of its import needs.

Meeting International Energy Agency standards would require hundreds of millions of additional barrels of storage capacity.

Recent plans under consideration suggest New Delhi is moving toward expanding its strategic petroleum reserve network.

Pakistan Also Reviewing Energy Security

Pakistan, which relied heavily on Middle Eastern oil and LNG imports before the conflict, is also examining ways to increase domestic storage capacity.

The Hormuz disruption underscored the risks facing countries that lack sufficient reserves to absorb prolonged supply interruptions.

Australia Moves to Address Reserve Gap

Australia, long criticized for failing to meet International Energy Agency stockpile requirements, has announced plans to significantly increase fuel reserves.

The move reflects a broader recognition that energy security has become a national security issue amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Europe Considers Additional Gas Storage

Europe already maintains extensive gas storage infrastructure to manage winter demand.

However, the war has renewed concerns about dependence on imported LNG, particularly as the region increasingly relies on overseas suppliers.

Additional government-controlled gas storage facilities may become part of future energy security planning.

Gulf Producers Seek Overseas Storage

The lessons of the Hormuz disruption are also influencing major energy exporters.

National oil companies in the Gulf are exploring opportunities to expand storage capacity outside the region to maintain export flexibility during future crises.

Additional overseas storage could help producers continue serving customers even if regional shipping routes face disruptions.

Oil Market Impact

The expansion of strategic reserves worldwide could create substantial new demand for crude oil and refined products.

At the same time, emergency reserves that were depleted during the conflict will need to be replenished.

Together, reserve rebuilding and new storage programs could generate demand for roughly one billion barrels over the coming years, providing support for global oil prices even if overall supply growth remains strong.

What It Means for Global Energy Security

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced a lesson many governments learned during previous energy shocks: supply security can be just as important as supply availability.

Countries are increasingly viewing strategic reserves not as emergency assets to be used rarely, but as a core component of economic and national security planning. The crisis has also demonstrated how large stockpiles can provide governments with flexibility to reduce imports during periods of market stress and extreme prices.

Analysis

The most significant consequence of the Iran war may not be the temporary spike in oil prices but the long-term shift in how countries manage energy security. The conflict exposed a clear divide between nations with large strategic reserves and those forced to absorb the full impact of supply disruptions. China emerged as a model for energy resilience, while countries such as India and Pakistan were reminded of their vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.

If governments follow through on plans to expand storage capacity, the global oil market could gain a major new source of structural demand. Reserve construction and replenishment may help absorb future supply surpluses and provide a floor for prices, particularly during periods of weak economic growth.

At the same time, larger strategic stockpiles could make future oil shocks less severe. Countries with substantial reserves are better positioned to reduce imports during crises, dampening demand spikes and limiting extreme price volatility. In the longer term, the world could emerge from the Hormuz crisis with a more resilient energy system, but one in which strategic stockpiles play a much larger role in shaping oil demand, trade flows and government policy.

With information from Reuters.

The occupied West Bank has seen sustained and rising violence amid ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli forces conduct frequent raids in Palestinian areas, saying they are targeting militants and preventing attacks, while Palestinians and rights groups accuse the military of using excessive force and say settlement expansion is a major driver of instability. Israeli settlements in the territory are widely considered illegal under international law by the United Nations and most countries, though Israel disputes this and views the West Bank as disputed land with historical and security significance. In recent months, tensions have further escalated with increased restrictions on Palestinian movement near settlements, alongside a rise in attacks by both Palestinians against Israelis and by settlers against Palestinians, contributing to a cycle of violence that continues to claim lives on both sides.

Fatal Shooting Near Beit Ummar

The incident took place near the town of Beit Ummar in the southern West Bank.

Palestinian news agency WAFA identified the victims as teenagers aged 15 and 19. A relative confirmed their ages to Reuters.

Israeli Military’s Account

The Israeli military said its forces confronted three individuals who were throwing fire bombs and burning tyres near the settlement of Karmei Tzur.

According to the military, soldiers opened fire, killing two of the individuals and wounding a third.

Reuters could not independently verify the military’s account.

Third Teenager Hospitalized

WAFA reported that the third person involved in the incident was hospitalized in stable condition.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society said the wounded individual is 15 years old.

Tensions Remain High in the West Bank

Israeli forces regularly conduct raids across the occupied West Bank and have tightened movement restrictions around Palestinian communities located near Israeli settlements in recent months.

The territory has experienced heightened tensions amid ongoing violence involving Israeli security forces, settlers and Palestinians.

Dispute Over Settlements

The international community, including the United Nations and most countries, considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law and a major obstacle to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel rejects that position, describing the territory as disputed and citing historical Jewish ties to the area.

Rising Violence

According to United Nations data, at least 57 Palestinians have been killed this year in incidents involving Israeli settlers and security forces.

At the same time, Palestinians have carried out attacks against Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank, including at least one fatal attack in 2026, according to Israel’s Shin Bet domestic security service.

What’s Next

The Israeli military is expected to continue reviewing the circumstances of the shooting, including whether the individuals posed an immediate threat and how the confrontation unfolded near the settlement.

Palestinian officials are likely to pursue diplomatic and legal avenues, as similar incidents in the West Bank are often raised with international bodies, including the United Nations, amid ongoing disputes over the use of force by Israeli troops.

On the ground, the incident is likely to add to already high tensions in the West Bank, where Israeli raids, settlement activity, and Palestinian attacks have contributed to a cycle of violence in recent months.

Further clashes cannot be ruled out, particularly in areas close to settlements where movement restrictions and security operations have intensified.

International attention on West Bank violence is also likely to continue, especially as reported fatalities involving Palestinians and Israelis have remained elevated this year, keeping pressure on both sides amid an already fragile security situation.

With information from Reuters.

The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran deserves cautious support, not celebration. Its most important promise is immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. That is a serious achievement if it holds. The reported US-Iran text also commits both sides to avoid threats or use of force and to respect sovereignty. But wars do not end because officials announce elegant clauses. They end when armies, proxies, navies, banks, inspectors and political leaders behave differently the next morning.

The reported Versailles signing, with President Macron nearby, gave the accord theatrical weight. The reported confirmation by Iran’s Foreign Ministry gave it visibility in Tehran. Yet the title “Islamabad” may be the most revealing symbol. It suggests that diplomacy around Iran is no longer owned by Washington and Europe alone. Pakistan, Qatar, Oman and Gulf states now matter. That is healthy. But symbolism cannot replace sequencing. A memorandum is useful only if it becomes a disciplined path toward a final settlement.

Hormuz is the pressure point

The Strait of Hormuz is the economic heart of this agreement. The International Energy Agency describes it as one of the world’s critical oil chokepoints, so restoring commercial shipping is a global necessity. The MOU’s promise of safe, toll-free passage for 60 days can calm markets, but it cannot settle maritime governance. Iran’s future talks with the Sultanate of Oman and other littoral states must produce rules on fees, inspections, de-mining, escorts and disputes. Without that, Hormuz remains a bargaining chip, not a secure passage.

The most controversial part is economic. Washington would provide waivers for Iranian oil exports, make frozen assets usable, avoid new sanctions during talks and support a reconstruction plan of at least $300 billion. This could be pragmatic statecraft or a strategic mistake. The OFAC Iran sanctions system affects banks, insurers, traders and shippers. Recent State Department sanctions show how aggressively Iranian petroleum networks had been targeted. Relief must therefore be sequenced with measurable action. If Tehran receives benefits before verification, critics will call it capitulation. If Washington delays relief after compliance, Tehran will call it bad faith.

Nuclear language cannot stay vague

Iran’s renewed pledge not to build nuclear weapons is necessary, but not enough. The decisive issue is the future of enriched material, enrichment activity and inspection access. Any final deal must put IAEA Iran monitoring at the centre. The IAEA’s NPT safeguards framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty offer the right balance: Iran has civilian nuclear rights, but the world has a right to credible assurance that military pathways are closed. Down-blending enriched material under inspection may be a start. It cannot be the finish line.

Including Lebanon in the ceasefire is wise, but risky. The promise to protect sovereignty echoes the UN Charter. But Lebanon has long suffered from the gap between formal sovereignty and armed reality. If Hezbollah, Israel, Iran or any other actor treats Lebanon as a loophole, the ceasefire will collapse at its weakest seam. The final text must clarify what “all fronts” means, how non-state armed groups are restrained, and what happens if a party violates the ceasefire through an ally.

The final agreement must be public and enforceable

A binding UN Security Council resolution is essential, but it should not rubber-stamp ambiguity. The history of Resolution 2231, wider UN sanctions practice, IAEA reports to the Security Council, and the UN record on Iranian ballistic missiles shows why detail matters. The final agreement must define deadlines, verification triggers, consequences for breach and the exact sanctions schedule. The Guardian’s analysis and Iran International’s reporting underline the same reality: the MOU buys time, but time can be wasted.

The Islamabad MOU is not peace. It is a pause with possibilities. It should be supported because war has already proved disastrous, but it must be judged by performance: ceasefire maintained, Hormuz reopened, sanctions relief sequenced, nuclear material verified, Lebanon protected and the final deal anchored in law. Anything less would turn a promising memorandum into another diplomatic mirage.

For decades, satellites have provided critical data for military activities in active and non-active combat zones. One of the most significant integration of space-based technologies emerged in missile defense systems during the Cold War. Satellite constellations provided critical data on the launch sites and trajectories of ballistic missiles. The US Defense Support Program (DSP) was the first program to launch satellite constellations to detect heat signatures of Soviet ICBMs with infrared sensors. The Soviet Union launched the first generation of early warning systems under OKO satellite constellations against US missile threats. These systems of satellite constellations allowed both the US and the USSR to maintain a close watch over each other’s strategic capabilities and allowed for much needed early warning that upheld mutual deterrence between the two powers.

Fast forward to the current era, today’s missile defense systems have shown a very limited success rate against hypersonic missiles. The tracking and interception capabilities of current missile defense systems have remained effectively limited due to speed, maneuverability, and depressed flight of hypersonic missiles. Traditional missile defense systems have been outmaneuvered by hypersonic missiles, which increases the threat level due to their capability to reach and hit targets with a high success rate. Modern hypersonic missiles can still be detected with infrared sensing during their boost phase, but Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) are extremely difficult to track and intercept primarily due to their maneuverability. The radar-evading capabilities of HGVs affect the strategic calculus by shrinking detection and reaction time duration during crises and conflicts.

As a remedy, the US has introduced the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors (HBTSS) to counter the threat of HGVs and Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCMs). The HBTSS will be a major component of the US Golden Dome missile defense project. It is a layered network of command-and-control systems, interceptors, and space-based sensors to build an advanced layer of missile defense system. What makes HBTSS different from traditional missile defense systems is the satellite constellation, which provides real-time tracking data of missiles. Traditional defense systems like Space Based Infrared System (SBIR) could detect the launch of missiles, but HBTSS can detect, track, and possibly predict the target of the missile.

Because HGVs present a unique challenge due to low flight path and maneuverability and often operate under the coverage of conventional radars, which make it difficult for traditional defense systems to detect. HBTSS relies on space-based sensors, which can detect and track continuously from space. Theoretically, it can be called a space-based missile defense system reflecting the growing strategic importance of space in the military domain. It relies on an interconnected satellite network that can work as a kill web across the globe against the threat of hypersonic missiles.

HBTSS is an emerging strategic shift as it starts a new era of space weaponization with a layer of satellites for enhanced detection and tracking. A reliable space-based tracking system bolsters a state’s capabilities to deal with the threat of hypersonic missiles with improved early warning and missile tracking systems, and reduces the threat of surprise attacks from an adversary. Although missile forces hold great impact on deterrence stability, the induction of HTBSS will question the effectiveness of missiles during crises and conflicts if a more advance missile defense system is introduced. This will provide a wider view from space with more accuracy and precision, and increase the vulnerability of missile forces of states.

Because ground-based nuclear forces are considered vulnerable, many countries have developed second-strike capabilities, particularly at sea, to preserve deterrence even after absorbing an initial attack. But the development of HBTSS undermines the survivability of a state’s missile forces with an enhanced detection and tracking system. Even though the United States and Russia continue to maintain certain crisis management and risk reduction mechanisms, including hotlines and military deconfliction channels, the suspension of New START has weakened the broader framework of strategic stability. While in conflict-prone regions like South Asia, India and Pakistan possess a more limited and less institutionalized set of confidence-building measures (CBMs), making crisis management in South Asia particularly challenging due to emerging technologies.

The peaceful use of outer space depends on the intent and actions of major powers. Sometimes measures taken for self-defense can also prompt a proportionate reaction in the form of countermeasures. The strategic impact of HBTSS on the missile forces may lead to more advance, fast, and lethal missiles for survivability. The development of HBTSS will not end the arms race, it will intensify the arms race with countermeasures.

China officially objected through its Foreign Ministry to the Japanese draft resolution to increase armaments and abandon Japan’s post-World War II commitment not to rearm its military, as approved by the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan during its general council meeting. The draft resolution proposed amending three key security documents, which are the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Medium-Range Defense Forces Enhancement Plan. It was to be submitted to the Japanese government and parliament for further discussion. Chinese authorities officially rejected and objected to the draft, deeming it a threat to their national security and their spheres of direct influence in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Indo-Pacific region. They considered it a radical escalation of Japan’s security strategy, detrimental to Chinese national security and to the global security initiative proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Here, the revision of Japan’s three security documents, represented in the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and Defense Force Enhancement Plan, represents a strategic shift away from its post-war pacifist constitution toward more proactive and independent military policies. The nature of this shift is evident in Tokyo’s easing of restrictions on lethal weapons exports and its reorientation of its armament toward counter-offensive capabilities and missile development. Under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s administration, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan has adopted a proactive approach, reshaping Japanese industries and institutions to address the greatest strategic challenge posed by China. The updated National Security Strategy has already fundamentally altered the country’s pacifist military doctrine by disarming the Japanese military and preventing its rearmament since World War II, a move that has drawn staunch opposition from China, which seeks to protect its own national security. The most significant amendments to the three Japanese security documents included Japan’s acknowledgment of its ability to double and enhance its counter-strike capabilities. This was achieved by allowing Japan to possess long-range missiles capable of striking enemy targets before launch. Simultaneously, Japanese authorities approved doubling defense spending, raising the military budget to 2% of GDP.

China objected to the Japanese draft resolution, which aimed to increase Japanese armament and militarize the region and global supply chains, and threatened to escalate the situation. Beijing strongly condemned these trends, describing them as new militarism. A key point of contention for China was what Chinese intelligence and military circles perceived as a warning of Japanese and foreign interference in Taiwanese affairs, as China considers Taiwan an integral part of its territory. Beijing condemned the Japanese leadership’s statement that any emergency in Taiwan is an emergency for Japan, describing a potential Chinese military intervention in Taiwan as an act of aggression. Here, Beijing rejects Japan’s new military approach, characterized by advanced military deployment. China has officially protested and taken countermeasures against Japan’s plans to deploy defensive missiles on Yonaguni Island, located only about 110 kilometers from Taiwan. China has strongly accused Japan of violating its commitments, arguing that this new Japanese military expansion violates Tokyo’s international obligations and its pacifist constitution. China has warned Japan that it will pay a heavy price if it intervenes militarily in the Taiwan Strait.

Chinese intelligence, military, security, and defense circles link Japan’s armament activities in Taiwan to American interference in Chinese affairs through its network of allies in the Asian region, such as Japan, given its close alliance with Washington. Here, Japan defends its military rearmament against China, with several of its officials sending political and security warnings to China. They argue that, given the uncertainty in Japan stemming from US policies and the fluctuating stance in Washington, Japan seeks to bolster its own capabilities and build regional alliances (with the Philippines, Australia, and NATO) to expand deterrence against Beijing and maintain regional security from a Japanese perspective. Strategic circles in Tokyo view the potential fall of Taiwan to China as a direct and existential threat to Japanese national security and vital shipping lanes, making the protection of the Taiwan Strait a fundamental component of Japan’s updated defense doctrine.

For these reasons, China’s decisive response was seen as a challenge to its national security, especially given Japan’s de facto official classification of Beijing as the greatest and most unprecedented strategic challenge to its security. This classification was further reinforced by Japanese authorities’ approval of developing military production, strengthening domestic defense industries, and easing restrictions on arms exports. This is where the dimensions of China’s official rejection and objection lie, as it is considered a violation of the pacifist principle enshrined in the Japanese military doctrine, which was internationally and regionally agreed upon after World War II for Japan’s disarmament. Beijing believes that Tokyo is abandoning its pacifist constitution and returning to a militaristic path, while Japan exaggerates the narrative of a China threat. Beijing accuses Japan of fabricating flimsy pretexts to justify its military expansion and arsenal, which threatens China’s regional security. Therefore, China warned that these Japanese steps to increase armament undermine peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and jeopardize the principles of China’s global security initiative. China also registered its objection to Japan’s exclusionary approaches to its initiative based on shared and sustainable security. Furthermore, China linked this Japanese escalation in its confrontation with China in the region to the sensitive issue of Taiwan and the close alliance between the United States and Japan, while categorically rejecting Japanese interference in Taiwan’s affairs and considering the island’s security an integral part of China’s national security.

Iran’s government has portrayed the interim agreement with the United States as a victory that ended months of conflict and prevented further escalation. The deal halted a war that saw U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, disruptions to trade, and severe economic damage across Iran.

However, interviews with ordinary Iranians reveal a starkly different picture. Many citizens say years of sanctions, combined with the recent conflict, have left them struggling with rising prices, declining living standards, and deep uncertainty about the future. While the fighting may have stopped for now, many remain unconvinced that the agreement will bring meaningful economic relief or lasting stability.

Economic Hardship Continues to Dominate Daily Life

For many Iranians, the ceasefire has not changed the reality of daily economic struggles.

Business owners, students, and workers interviewed across the country described a population focused on survival rather than recovery. Many reported cutting household spending, reducing social activities, and adjusting to higher living costs. Small businesses continue to face weak consumer demand, while young people increasingly worry about their economic prospects.

The war added another layer of pressure to an economy already weakened by years of international sanctions, inflation, and limited foreign investment. As a result, many citizens see little immediate prospect of improvement even if the ceasefire holds.

Divided Views on the Outcome of the Conflict

The agreement has exposed a clear divide between the government’s narrative and public sentiment.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic view the deal as proof that Iran resisted external pressure and preserved its political system. Some hardliners argue that the country emerged stronger and demonstrated resilience despite military and economic pressure.

Many ordinary citizens, however, are less focused on geopolitical outcomes and more concerned about living standards. For them, the key measure of success is whether the agreement leads to lower prices, economic opportunities, and greater stability. So far, few appear convinced that such changes are imminent.

Concerns Grow Over Political Freedoms

Beyond economic concerns, many Iranians fear that the post war environment could lead to tighter political controls.

Some citizens believe the government may use the conflict and national security concerns to justify stronger oversight and restrictions. These fears are particularly pronounced in regions populated by ethnic minorities, where previous protests have often been met with heavy security responses.

There is also uncertainty about whether public frustration over economic conditions could trigger future demonstrations. While many people remain cautious after previous crackdowns, underlying grievances over jobs, inflation, and political freedoms remain unresolved.

The ceasefire may have reduced the immediate threat of war, but it has done little to address the deeper challenges facing Iran. Public opinion appears increasingly shaped by economic realities rather than political declarations of victory.

The government may benefit in the short term from ending the conflict and avoiding further military escalation. However, lasting stability will depend on whether authorities can deliver tangible economic improvements and restore public confidence.

The biggest challenge for Tehran is that expectations remain extremely low. Many Iranians do not see the ceasefire as a turning point but rather as a temporary pause in a broader cycle of economic hardship and political uncertainty. If future negotiations fail to produce sanctions relief, investment, and economic recovery, public frustration could continue to grow despite the end of active conflict.

Stakeholders

• Iranian government and political leadership
• Iranian citizens and businesses
• United States
• Israel
• Ethnic minority communities in Iran
• International investors and energy markets
• Regional governments monitoring stability in the Middle East

What’s Next

Attention will now shift to negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iranian leaders will seek economic benefits and sanctions relief, while Washington is expected to push for further commitments on security and nuclear issues.

Domestically, the government faces the challenge of managing economic expectations and maintaining stability. Whether the ceasefire translates into meaningful improvements for ordinary Iranians may ultimately determine how the agreement is judged inside the country.

With information from Reuters.

The announcement of a preliminary US-Iran agreement has generated cautious optimism in Lebanon, where months of conflict have displaced large portions of the population and devastated communities across the south.

While the framework reportedly calls for the immediate cessation of military operations, Lebanese authorities are warning residents against assuming that conditions are safe enough for a rapid return.

The caution reflects uncertainty over how the agreement will be implemented and whether all parties will abide by its terms.

Adding to those concerns, Israel has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by the agreement and intends to maintain security zones in southern Lebanon.

Lebanon became one of the principal battlegrounds of the wider regional conflict after Hezbollah opened a front against Israel in support of Iran following the outbreak of hostilities.

The resulting escalation led to extensive Israeli military operations across southern Lebanon, causing widespread destruction and one of the largest displacement crises in the country’s recent history.

Entire communities were uprooted as residents fled bombardment and military activity.

Iran consistently pushed for any agreement with Washington to include provisions addressing Lebanon, viewing the conflict there as inseparable from broader regional tensions.

The inclusion of Lebanon in the framework agreement therefore represents a significant diplomatic concession and a central element of Tehran’s negotiating position.

Why This Matters

Lebanon has become one of the clearest examples of how regional conflicts can produce devastating humanitarian consequences.

The conflict has:

• Displaced more than a million people.
• Damaged homes, infrastructure, and businesses.
• Increased pressure on Lebanon’s already fragile economy.
• Deepened political and social instability.

A durable ceasefire could allow reconstruction efforts to begin and reduce the risk of further regional escalation.

However, the humanitarian benefits will depend on security conditions improving on the ground rather than merely on diplomatic declarations.

The Challenge of Returning Home

For displaced families, peace announcements do not automatically translate into confidence.

Many residents remain uncertain about:

• Whether military operations have truly ended.
• The presence of Israeli forces in southern areas.
• The condition of homes and infrastructure.
• Future security guarantees.

The hesitation expressed by displaced residents reflects a broader reality in conflict zones: trust often takes much longer to rebuild than physical infrastructure.

Even if active fighting stops, communities may remain reluctant to return until they believe the risk of renewed conflict has genuinely diminished.

Israel’s Position Complicates the Picture

A major obstacle to immediate normalization is Israel’s position.

Israeli officials have indicated they will continue maintaining security zones and reserve the right to conduct operations they deem necessary for national security.

This creates ambiguity regarding implementation of the broader agreement.

While the US-Iran framework may establish a diplomatic foundation for reducing violence, the practical situation on the ground will depend on decisions made by actors who were not direct participants in the negotiations.

This distinction could prove crucial in determining whether the agreement produces lasting stability.

A Test of Regional Diplomacy

The inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement demonstrates how interconnected Middle Eastern conflicts have become.

The war was never confined solely to the United States and Iran. It involved multiple regional actors, proxy groups, and overlapping security concerns.

As a result, success will be measured not only by whether Washington and Tehran uphold their commitments but also by whether the agreement influences behavior across the broader region.

Lebanon is likely to become one of the first and most visible tests of that process.

Key Stakeholders

• Lebanon and its government institutions
• Displaced Lebanese civilians
• Israel and its military leadership
• Hezbollah
• Iran
• The United States
• Regional mediators including Pakistan
• Humanitarian organizations operating in Lebanon

What to Watch Next

• Whether military activity in southern Lebanon decreases in the coming days.
• Israeli decisions regarding security zones.
• Hezbollah’s official response to the agreement.
• The pace of civilian returns to southern communities.
• International support for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
• Broader negotiations during the 60-day ceasefire period.

The agreement creates an opportunity for Lebanon to move toward greater stability after months of destruction and displacement.

If implemented successfully, reduced hostilities could pave the way for reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and the gradual return of displaced populations.

Yet significant uncertainty remains. Security concerns, damaged infrastructure, and competing interpretations of the agreement could slow progress and complicate efforts to restore normalcy.

For many Lebanese families, the end of active conflict would represent only the beginning of a much longer recovery process.

Analysis

The most revealing aspect of Lebanon’s reaction is the disconnect between diplomacy and reality.

International leaders may celebrate ceasefires and framework agreements, but people living through conflict judge peace by different standards. They look not at official statements but at troop movements, security conditions, and whether it is safe to return home.

That gap is already visible in southern Lebanon. While diplomats describe the agreement as a breakthrough, local authorities are warning residents against rushing back. Israel’s decision to maintain security zones further reinforces uncertainty about how quickly conditions can normalize.

This highlights a recurring challenge in conflict resolution. Agreements can stop wars on paper, but rebuilding trust often takes far longer than negotiating a ceasefire.

Lebanon’s experience may therefore become a key measure of whether the US-Iran agreement delivers meaningful change beyond diplomatic symbolism. If displaced communities can safely return, reconstruction begins, and violence declines, the agreement will gain credibility. If insecurity persists despite the deal, questions will quickly emerge about its effectiveness.

Ultimately, Lebanon represents the human dimension of the broader regional settlement. The success of the agreement will not be judged solely by geopolitical outcomes or energy markets but by whether ordinary people feel secure enough to rebuild their lives after months of war.

With information from Reuters.

Ukraine’s defence ministry believes artificial intelligence is set to fundamentally transform modern warfare, as Kyiv accelerates efforts to integrate AI into battlefield operations amid its ongoing war with Russia.

According to Danylo Tsvok, head of Ukraine’s Defence Ministry AI Research Centre, the country is already employing artificial intelligence across multiple military functions, including drone operations, battlefield planning, intelligence analysis, and missile attack assessments.

The centre, established in March, is part of a broader effort to make data driven decision making a core component of Ukraine’s defence strategy. Officials envision a future where AI systems, sensors, drones, command centres, and weapons platforms operate through a unified digital network capable of processing battlefield information and recommending military actions in real time.

Why It Matters

Ukraine’s experience is increasingly being viewed as a preview of how future wars may be fought. The conflict has already demonstrated the growing importance of drones, autonomous systems, and real time intelligence, but AI could push military operations into an entirely new phase.

Rather than merely supporting commanders, future AI systems may become central to battlefield decision making by processing vast quantities of data faster than human operators can manage. This could dramatically shorten the time between identifying a target and launching an attack.

The implications extend far beyond Ukraine. Military planners around the world are closely monitoring the conflict as a testing ground for next generation warfare technologies.

The Rise of AI Driven Combat

The war has already evolved into a technological competition in which both Ukraine and Russia are attempting to gain advantages through automation, data analysis, and autonomous systems.

Ukraine is working toward a battlefield operating system capable of integrating information from drones, reconnaissance assets, weapons systems, and frontline units into a single decision making framework. The objective is to create a comprehensive operational picture that enables faster and more effective responses.

Russia is pursuing similar capabilities, particularly in drone warfare and strike planning, creating what Ukrainian officials describe as an emerging competition between military operating systems rather than simply armies.

Global Defence Implications

The conflict has attracted significant attention from defence technology firms and AI developers seeking real world operational data. Companies and governments increasingly view Ukraine as one of the most important testing environments for military AI applications.

The lessons learned from the war could influence defence procurement, military doctrine, and security planning across NATO, Asia, and other regions facing evolving security challenges.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded in military systems, countries may be forced to rethink command structures, training requirements, and the role of human decision makers in combat.

Key Stakeholders

• Ukraine military
• Russian military
• Defence technology companies
• NATO members
• Artificial intelligence developers
• Defence ministries worldwide
• Military planners and strategists

Future Outlook

Over the next three to five years, military competition is likely to shift increasingly toward AI enabled command systems, autonomous platforms, and integrated battlefield networks.

Countries capable of rapidly processing information and converting it into actionable decisions may gain a significant operational advantage. At the same time, concerns about autonomy, accountability, and human oversight will become more prominent as AI systems assume larger roles in combat operations.

The race to integrate AI into warfare is expected to intensify, making technological superiority as important as traditional military strength.

Analysis

Ukraine’s assessment points to a deeper transformation than simply adding artificial intelligence to existing weapons systems. What is emerging is a shift from platform centric warfare to data centric warfare, where military advantage depends less on the number of tanks, aircraft, or soldiers and more on the ability to collect, process, and act on information faster than an opponent.

The most significant aspect of this transition is the compression of decision making time. Historically, military success depended on commanders interpreting information and issuing orders. AI has the potential to reduce that cycle from hours or minutes to seconds, creating a battlefield where speed of analysis becomes as important as firepower.

This evolution could fundamentally alter military hierarchies. If AI systems become capable of generating reliable operational recommendations faster than humans can assess them, commanders may increasingly act as supervisors rather than primary decision makers. The challenge will be balancing military effectiveness with accountability and ethical oversight.

The Ukraine conflict is therefore becoming more than a territorial war; it is also serving as a laboratory for the future of warfare. The countries that emerge with the most effective integration of AI, autonomous systems, and battlefield data networks may define military power for decades to come. In this sense, the competition between Ukraine and Russia increasingly resembles a contest between technological ecosystems, foreshadowing a future in which wars are won not only through weapons but through algorithms and information dominance.

With information from Reuters.