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 reopening of the Rafah crossing provides some hope for Palestinians, but can it be sustained?
English Summary
Chatham House argues that reopening Rafah is a meaningful but fragile breakthrough: it restores a limited non-Israeli outlet for Gazans, yet remains vulnerable to political, security, and operational reversal. Evidence cited includes very low initial crossing numbers, Israeli pre-clearance and vetting rules, reported harassment, and historical patterns in which security incidents, monitoring bottlenecks, and factional competition repeatedly led to closure or violence. The paper also notes Israeli domestic electoral pressures, far-right opposition, and concerns over smuggling, all of which could undermine implementation of the wider October 2025 ceasefire framework and Gaza reconstruction plans. Strategically, the implication is that external actors should prioritize robust monitoring, transparent crossing governance, and sustained diplomatic pressure to prevent backsliding, while recognizing that continued closure would deepen despair and likely fuel renewed instability.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）認為，重啟拉法口岸是一項具意義但脆弱的突破：它為加薩民眾恢復了一條有限、非以色列的對外通道，但仍易因政治、安全與運作因素而逆轉。文中證據包括：初期通行人數極低、以色列的事前核准與審查規定、據報發生的騷擾，以及歷史上安全事件、監測瓶頸與派系競爭一再導致口岸關閉或暴力升高的模式。報告亦指出，以色列國內選舉壓力、極右翼反對與對走私的憂慮，都可能削弱更廣泛的2025年10月停火框架與加薩重建計畫的落實。從戰略上看，其意涵是外部行動方應優先投入強健監測、透明的口岸治理與持續外交施壓，以防止情勢倒退；同時必須認知，若口岸持續關閉，將加深絕望，並很可能助長新一輪不穩定。
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.