The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
The EU’s IRGC terrorist designation marks a major shift on Iran
English Summary
The article argues that the EU’s 2026 designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization marks a decisive break from three decades of engagement-based Iran policy. It says Europe’s old balance of pressure and dialogue collapsed after cumulative shocks: Iran’s military support to Russia after 2022, repression following Mahsa Amini’s death, failure to restore the nuclear deal in 2023, and UN snapback sanctions in 2025. The immediate trigger was the scale of the early-2026 crackdown, which convinced European governments there were no credible Iranian interlocutors left and that non-designation carried unacceptable reputational costs. Strategically, the move raises legal and compliance risks for EU and non-EU firms tied to Iran while likely reducing the EU’s diplomatic leverage, leaving Europe more sidelined in US-Iran decision-making.
中文摘要
該文主張，歐盟於2026年將伊朗伊斯蘭革命衛隊（IRGC）列為恐怖組織，標誌著歐洲對伊政策與過去三十年「接觸優先」路線的決定性斷裂。文章指出，在一連串累積性衝擊下，歐洲原有「施壓與對話並行」的平衡已告瓦解，包括：2022年後伊朗對俄羅斯提供軍事支持、瑪莎・阿米尼之死後的鎮壓、2023年恢復核協議失敗，以及2025年聯合國啟動「快速恢復制裁」（snapback）。直接導火線則是2026年初鎮壓規模之大，使歐洲各國政府認定已無可信的伊朗對話對象，且若不列名將承擔不可接受的聲譽成本。從戰略層面看，此舉提高了與伊朗有關聯之歐盟與非歐盟企業的法律與合規風險，同時可能削弱歐盟的外交槓桿，進一步使歐洲在美伊決策中被邊緣化。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
4.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.