Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand Issues Commentary: War Is Coming Home to Russia
SANTA MONICA, California, Feb. 21 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by John F. Tefft, distinguished chair in diplomacy and security:* * *
The War Is Coming Home to Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought from the very start of his "special military operation" in Ukraine to prevent the conflict from intruding into the lives of Russian citizens, particularly those who live in Moscow and St. Petersburg. As the war enters its fifth year, this effort is increasingly failing.
Ukraine is attacking military facilities and refineries around Russia, causing significant ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, Feb. 21 -- Rand issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by John F. Tefft, distinguished chair in diplomacy and security: * * * The War Is Coming Home to Russia Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought from the very start of his "special military operation" in Ukraine to prevent the conflict from intruding into the lives of Russian citizens, particularly those who live in Moscow and St. Petersburg. As the war enters its fifth year, this effort is increasingly failing. Ukraine is attacking military facilities and refineries around Russia, causing significantdamage and producing shortages in gasoline. Western sanctions are biting harder into the fragile Russian economy. Along with huge expenditures on the military (which now receives 8 percent of GDP), sanctions are restricting the flow of long-term capital for the civilian economy. Russia's energy revenues dropped by about a fifth in 2025. Fiscal problems are growing, and the country may be on the verge of a serious recession. The budget deficit in 2025 was 2.5 percent of GDP, five times higher than was predicted at the beginning of the year. To raise revenue, VAT taxes have been raised, and a "technological fee" will be assessed on imported electronics and household appliances.
Beyond the economy, there is growing evidence of the war's negative, long-term impacts on Russian society, from rising crime and corruption to worsening political repression. These portend greater dislocations and strained social cohesion.
The Impact of Declining Population
The war in Ukraine has caused a horrendous loss of life, which will only exacerbate the long-term impact on Russia's declining population. Despite decades-long efforts by Russian governments, the birth rate (fertility) officially remains no higher than it was in 1991, 1.78 births per woman. Experts believe it is likely much less, around 1.5 births (2.1 births are required to maintain population).
In a 2024 report for the Atlantic Council, Professor Harley Balzer wrote:
* * *
"United Nations scenarios project Russia's population in 2100 to be between 74 million and 112 million compared with the current 146 million. The most recent UN projections are for the world's population to decline by about 20 percent by 2100. The estimate for Russia is a decline of 25 to 50 percent."
* * *
As early as 2023, Fareed Zakaria observed that Russia was "losing the 21st century." He wrote in the Washington Post:
What stands out in Russia is its mortality. In 2019, before covid [sic] and the invasion of Ukraine, the World Health Organization estimated a 15-year-old boy in Russia could expect to live another 53.7 years, which was the same as in Haiti and below the life expectancy for boys his age in Yemen, Mali, and South Sudan. Swiss boys around the same age could expect to live more than 13 years longer.
* * *
The brutal war could make such mortality figures even worse. The Center for Strategic and International Studies recently published a report which estimates that Russians killed, wounded and missing in the war may total up to 1.2 million, of which 325,000 may have been killed. Ukraine's casualties, by contrast, are estimated to range from 500,000 to 600,000. Of those, 100,000 to 140,000 may have died.
The war is already having a huge impact on the Russian labor market. Shortages abound. Russia's labor minister is reported to have told Putin last year that Russia will have a shortage of 2.4 million workers by 2030. Others put the number higher. Young men can now make much more by signing up for the military (with substantial bonuses) than they can working in civilian jobs in their home oblasts. Not surprisingly, businesses now have to pay higher salaries, which in turn drives up costs and inflation (officially set at 6 to 7 percent in September 2025 but probably higher). Russia used to rely on migrant labor from Central Asia, but that has diminished in the wake of the security crackdown after the 2024 attack on the Crocus City Hall theater by Tajik terrorists. Now Russia is turning to migrant labor from India and Sri Lanka.
Returning Soldiers and the Growing Incidence of Crime
Russian state media reported in January that there were currently about 250,000 unemployed veterans of the "special military operation" who had returned to Russia from Ukraine. Almost as soon as the news was published, the story disappeared, undoubtedly to prevent raising public anxiety. Many Russians remember the difficult return of Soviet-era war veterans from Afghanistan, which involved fewer people. Crime, drug use, and domestic instability surged. Some of those soldiers contributed to the growth of organized crime.
The government is reportedly working to help soldiers returning from Ukraine (PDF) rejoin civic life, but it will not be easy. Russia may have the resources to provide assistance, but it does not have the social infrastructure capacity, particularly in health care and law enforcement. Many servicemen are likely to be able to earn only a fraction of the money they earned at war, potentially causing discontent. Putin sees this as a potential political risk, according to Russian sources who spoke to Reuters, and he wants to manage it to avoid destabilizing society and the Russian political system.
One of the most striking changes in Russia since the beginning of the Ukraine war has been the growing incidence of crime. In a 2025 article now well known among Russian analysts, V.A. Maslov of the Urals Law Institute of the Russian Ministry of the Interior surveyed the impact of the war on rising criminality. "It is possible to state with certainty that the special military operation to some degree has already touched the life of every Russian," Maslov writes. "Its conduct is having an impact on the criminal situation in the country and will inescapably have an impact on criminality in the future." His article addresses: the criminal acts of prisoners pardoned to participate in the war; crime due to post-traumatic stress disorder; the sharp growth of income by soldiers in the war, along with newly acquired skills in handling firearms; fraud committed against soldiers' relatives; social problems in families of returning soldiers; as well as forced migration, extremist behavior and war crimes.
In January, the independent news media outlet Novaya Gazeta published "The House Where the War Came," which quantified the rise in crimes committed by soldiers returning from the war. Among its findings:
* More than 8,000 participants in the "special military operation" have been convicted of "civil" crimes since 2022. About 7,000 of them are veterans who have returned home.
* About 900 veterans committed violent crimes. At least 423 victims died (61 of them in car accidents). Fifty-two were victims of domestic violence: partners, children, mothers, grandmothers, and sisters.
* Novaya Gazeta claims that participants in the "special military operation" are twice as likely to be tried for murder and serious injury than Russians from a similar social group.
* At least 27 percent of the veterans who were put on trial had already been convicted of crimes before the war. President Putin had pardoned 656 of them so that they could be sent directly from prison to fight in Ukraine (recall Yevgeny Prigozhin's recruitment of tens of thousands of prisoners held in harsh penal colonies to fight in Ukraine with his Wagner Group mercenaries).
Metastasizing Corruption
Corruption was endemic in the Soviet Union and remains so in Russia. It has only increased since the war started in 2022. Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Russia 157th out of 182 countries. Russia scored 22 points on a scale with 100 being free of corruption and 0 being the most corrupt. Russia dropped three positions, equaling its worst result in the history of the poll. Transparency International concluded:
* * *
In Russia, a steady degradation of key democratic institutions has been recorded. The full-scale war against Ukraine that has been going on since 2022, the repression of civil society, attacks on independent journalism, the rejection of transparency in public procurement and budget management--all this creates conditions under which corruption becomes the norm, not the exception.
* * *
Numerous Russian officials have been arrested for corruption, from leaders of regional oblasts near Ukraine to numerous officials at the national level, particularly senior officials who worked at the Ministry of Defense under former Minister Sergey Shoigu.
The Ministry of Interior and Prosecutor General's office have reported that the number of bribery cases during the war years has almost doubled. So too has the average bribe amount in Russia--it has reached a million rubles. The armed forces and the military industrial complex are the key drivers in the growth of bribes.
Repression and Societal Cohesion
Repression has grown steadily since the start of the war. Professor Nina Khrushcheva of the New School in New York wrote in the January issue of Foreign Affairs magazine:
* * *
Restrictions of all kinds have expanded over the past four years--not just book bans but reduced access to social media, crackdowns on protest, and measures to render the LGBT community invisible and feminism illegitimate. Russia's 'foreign agent' law, established in 2012 to identify individuals and organizations that received international funding, has become a tool to criminally prosecute and ban from public life anyone who disagrees with the state. In early 2022, 300 people and organizations were on the notorious list of foreign agents; now, the number is over 1,100. The Kremlin has now launched a new phase of repression--going after not only the opposition but even the super loyal nationalists who long supported the war.
* * *
The Kremlin is taking no chances, despite the fact that Russians continue to support Putin and the war in Ukraine, albeit with less enthusiasm than in the past. New restrictions are now being introduced to restrict the use of the internet. The State Duma in January began passing a law which would give the Federal Security Service the right to disconnect not only mobile phone and data services, but also landlines.
Fearing any criticism of the war, the Kremlin is moving to eliminate independent civil society and suppress all opposition political activity. Combined with its heavy-handed propaganda and indoctrination campaign in schools, the Kremlin seeks to eliminate any public discussion of the nation's future with which it does not agree. This will undermine social cohesion in Russia with long-term consequences.
Khrushcheva concludes that:
Moscow has built a larger repressive apparatus. It has cultivated a climate of fear and uncertainty that encouraged many Russians to silence not just themselves but also one another. The accumulation of subtle changes on the part of both the state and society has led Russia deeper and deeper into tyranny--a cycle that seems unlikely to break as long as Putin's regime pursues the kind of total control that until recently seemed to exist only in Russia's communist past or in Orwell's fiction.
* * *
The Challenge of a Post-War World
Whatever the outcome of Russia's war in Ukraine, the changes it has produced within Russia are likely to be profound and harmful. The long-term costs for the Russian economy will be enormous. Coping with severe labor shortages, and a wartime legacy of social problems will test Russia's leaders.
Throughout his rule Vladimir Putin has prized stability as a cornerstone of his domestic policies. He has resisted the reforms necessary to open the Russian economy and society. Strict repression today is designed to maintain wartime stability, but it will not be effective in a society trying to emerge from the traumas of war.
Once the war ends, the Kremlin will have to convert a militarized economy to a more normal 21st-century economy. Russia will almost certainly have to open up to attract new foreign investment and to encourage new Russian businesses to grow and flourish. Foreign investors and domestic businessmen will demand fair law-based rules and limits on corruption to guarantee their investments.
All this will challenge American foreign policymakers. Helping to bring the war to an end and ensuring a secure settlement will only be the first step. Designing policies to protect American interests and help Americans navigate a rocky post-war Russian world will require creativity, firmness, and patience.
* * *
More About This Commentary
John F. Tefft holds the Distinguished Chair in Diplomacy and Security at RAND and is a retired U.S. diplomat. He was a career Foreign Service officer for more than 45 years, completing his service as the U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation from 2014 to 2017. He would like to thank Bob Otto for his kind assistance in helping prepare this article.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/02/the-war-is-coming-home-to-russia.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Critical Questions Q&A: What the Potomac River Sewage Spill Reveals About U.S. Water Infrastructure
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on Feb. 20, 2026, by Tanvi Nagpal, senior associate (non-resident) for the Global Food and Water Security Program:* * *
What the Potomac River Sewage Spill Reveals About U.S. Water Infrastructure
On January 19, a section of a large wastewater pipe (sewer) called the Potomac Interceptor collapsed about seven miles outside of Washington, D.C., resulting in what has become the largest wastewater spill in U.S. history. The pipe runs along a local highway and the C&O Canal National ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following Critical Questions Q&A on Feb. 20, 2026, by Tanvi Nagpal, senior associate (non-resident) for the Global Food and Water Security Program: * * * What the Potomac River Sewage Spill Reveals About U.S. Water Infrastructure On January 19, a section of a large wastewater pipe (sewer) called the Potomac Interceptor collapsed about seven miles outside of Washington, D.C., resulting in what has become the largest wastewater spill in U.S. history. The pipe runs along a local highway and the C&O Canal NationalHistorical Park by the Potomac River, and the spill has endangered river water quality in D.C. and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. DC Water, the utility responsible for water and wastewater for 700,000 D.C. residents and millions of visitors to the capital, and for treating wastewater for 1.8 million customers in the National Capital Region, reported that approximately 243 million gallons of wastewater had been released into the Potomac River as of February 6. On February 9, pumps clogged by non-flushable wipes led to another failure, releasing 600,000 additional gallons of sewage. In the days following, E. coli levels near the spill were nearly 12,000 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limit for recreation. Crews have been working night and day to install new pipes and pumps to divert the wastewater away from the site of the spill. Both the utility and local governments have assured the public of the safety of their drinking water, which is drawn from reservoirs upstream of the spill.
Q1: What are the immediate and long-term impacts of the Potomac River sewage spill?
A1: An accident of this size has disastrous environmental impacts. The Potomac is a critical resource for millions who use the river for fishing, recreation, and agriculture. Within days, DC Water assured customers that it was monitoring the river's water quality, and E. coli levels have begun to return to prior levels at testing sites downstream. However, local environmental nongovernmental organization Potomac Riverkeepers Network reported that tests it has conducted with the University of Maryland have shown dangerously high levels of E. coli and staphylococcus up to 10 miles from the spill, making the river dangerous for recreational use. he State of Maryland banned shellfish harvesting 50 miles downstream of the spill. DC Water and the District of Columbia's Health Department are posting updated test results on their websites showing that E.coli levels continue to fluctuate and remain elevated at some testing sites.
As the weather warms, and the millions of residents who live in the Potomac Basin return to boating, fishing, and swimming in the river, it will be important for authorities to communicate when the river is indeed safe once more. On February 18, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser declared the spill a "public emergency," requesting financial assistance from "the Federal Emergency Management Agency, any other federal, private, or nonprofit disaster relief and recovery organizations, and any other federal agencies to recoup expenditures incurred, or obtain funding needed to respond to and address the impacts of the incident." DC Water had previously budgeted $625 million to upgrade the interceptor, and the utility is in the midst of a $3.8 billion Clean Rivers Project which is projected to cut 93 percent of runoff into the Potomac by 2030.
Q2: What does the Potomac River spill reveal about broader challenges to U.S. water infrastructure?
A2: There are 152,000 publicly owned drinking water systems and nearly 18,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities that provide year-round drinking water and wastewater treatment in the United States. Water and wastewater systems manage millions of miles of underground pipes that bring drinking water to and remove wastewater from most U.S. homes. Operating and managing this infrastructure is complicated and expensive. Many utilities struggling to meet operational costs defer maintaining, replacing, and upgrading outdated infrastructure. Breaks and leaks are common in drinking water and sewage pipes. The EPA estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows in the United States every year. In addition, even though suppliers are prioritizing replacing old drinking water pipes, 20 percent of all water mains that carry treated drinking water to neighborhoods are past their useful life.
In 2024, the EPA projected that new and upgraded wastewater and stormwater infrastructure would cost $630.1 billion (in 2022 dollars) over the next 20 years to meet federal water quality standards. A year prior, the EPA reported that in order to provide safe drinking water, water systems need to invest $625 billion (in 2021 dollars) over two decades. In 2024 alone, the gap between the amount needed and the actual spending on water infrastructure was projected at $91 billion. When the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed in 2021, it provided $50 billion for drinking and wastewater system upgrades, removal of lead lines, and remediation of chemicals such as polyfluoroalkyl substance. This investment, the largest-ever infusion of federal funds into U.S. infrastructure, has been key to beginning improvements, especially in the removal of lead lines across the country. However, the act expires in 2026, water infrastructure is still far from secure, and the needs are even more pressing. A 2025 annual assessment of the state of public infrastructure gave drinking water infrastructure a C-, stormwater a D, and wastewater a D+, reflecting the slow pace of progress. A recent assessment suggests that the financial requirements for modernizing water infrastructure have actually increased substantially to more than $3.4 trillion between now and 2040. The recent spill clearly reveals that more attention should be given to this issue.
Q3: What are some of the other threats that water utilities face in addition to aging infrastructure?
A3: Among the many threats facing U.S. water infrastructure, three are commonly noted: (1) extreme weather events, (2) the increased frequency and complexity of cyber threats, and (3) the workforce shortage. Directing more federal resources and attention to these is key to securing water infrastructure and the critical services it provides.
Extreme weather events: More frequent and intense weather events such as rainstorms and hurricanes are leading to severe inland and coastal flooding, including in places that had never experienced such phenomena. In 2024, there were 27 weather related disasters that together resulted in $182.73 billion in damages. For example, Hurricane Helene, which devastated parts of Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, led to nearly $80 billion in damages. Hurricane Milton, which made landfall in Florida, led to over $34.3 billion in damages. Even without the high winds that accompany hurricanes, extremely heavy rainfall brings water in volumes that can overwhelm pipes and pumps, disrupting and damaging drinking water services and stormwater and wastewater treatment. One study estimates that the annual cost of extreme rain events will rise to $41 billion per year by 2050.
Too little water is as great a challenge as too much water. Extended drought such as the American Southwest megadrought, which has lasted 22 years, have stressed water providers over long periods of time. Droughts raise utility costs, as they require utilities to find water from alternate sources. When droughts are accompanied by heat waves, demand for water rises as supply falls, placing strains on providers and their customers. Hot and dry conditions also increase fire risks and place additional stress on water availability and quality. Local governments, households, businesses, and service providers are all struggling to adapt to these new climate realities.
Cyber threats: Providing safe water and treating wastewater are considered national critical functions according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which states, "These functions are so vital to the U.S. that their disruption, corruption, or dysfunction would have a debilitating effect on national security, economic stability, and public health and safety."
Cyber threats are a quickly growing danger. Large utilities, which already have highly automated operations, are experimenting with AI tools for predictive and diagnostic analytics. As utilities digitize operations, use cloud-based services, and integrate AI tools, they need to invest more into cybersecurity upgrades to protect their monitoring and control systems, metering and billing, and physical operations. Ransomware and malware can disrupt the functioning of their pumps and meters or introduce glitches in their ability to oversee how their system is operating. In a worst-case scenario, a cyberattack could shut down drinking water or treatment systems, jeopardizing the health and safety of thousands of citizens and effectively shutting down all economic activity. While more utilities are turning to the use of automated and digital systems, they must simultaneously spend more on securing these systems, especially as the ability to understand and deploy AI tools has not kept pace with the technological advances.
Workforce shortage: All utilities--but especially those in small towns and rural areas--are contending with a workforce shortage. Of the 300,000 people who work in utilities, approximately one-third are operators, where shortages are most critical. More than half of all water and wastewater plant operators are above 45 years of age, and fewer than 5 percent are under 24. With rising demands for a more skilled and technologically savvy workforce, the sector needs an infusion of talent. Approximately 85 percent of utilities have three or fewer employees, and they already struggle to make timely repairs and procure parts, leaving no time or resources to invest in gaining advanced certifications, applying for grants or loans, or setting up systems to attract new talent. Dramatic differences between the scale of operations and resources available to large versus small utilities also make it difficult to create and share solutions that work for everyone.
Q4: What is the current funding landscape of water infrastructure in the United States?
A4: Local and state governments are responsible for almost 90 percent of the expenditure on water infrastructure. This spending comes from user charges on water bills, local taxes, and municipal bonds. Thus, it is essentially rate payers who are responsible for funding operations and financing new infrastructure. State Revolving Funds (SRFs), administered by EPA and capitalized by the federal government, provide low-interest loans to utilities based on set formulas and assessment of environmental benefit and economic need. Other federal agencies including Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Health and Human Services also provide grants and loans for water infrastructure, particularly for small or rural systems. Additionally, the EPA-administered Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act makes low interest, long-term loans to supplement other credit sources for infrastructure projects that cost more than $20 million (large utilities) or $5 million (small utilities). While all these sources of finance exist, it is often difficult or impossible for small utilities to meet all the technical requirements to access this money. Decades of foregone maintenance and a customer base that cannot afford to pay higher rates make it impossible for the smallest systems, who may serve 500 or fewer customers, to repay any loan. They must compete for state or federal grants to make much needed investments.
Q5: What policies are needed to make U.S. water infrastructure more resilient?
A5: The benefits of investing in water infrastructure far outweigh the costs. Every dollar spent in communities on improving resilience saves $13 in disaster-related costs. Reauthorizing spending at previous levels set by the IIJA and ensuring that SRFs are widely available to utilities of all sizes are of utmost importance. The recent compromise budget appropriated $2.76 billion in SRFs for drinking water and clean water. Another $1.6 billion would be distributed to 1,163 individual project earmarks requested by members of Congress. While this level of funding for 2026 was a welcome relief, sector actors have noted that earmarks are grants instead of loans, so they do not return money to SRFs, potentially reducing funds available for all the other projects prioritized and ranked by states with established criteria.
Utilities rely on customers for over 90 percent of their operational budgets, but many customers cannot afford to pay higher rates. According to a 2024 EPA report, 23 percent of community water systems serve populations where a majority of customers need assistance to pay their bills. When utilities cannot charge higher rates, they also cannot take on the financial risk of borrowing to invest in additional cybersecurity, workforce recruitment and training, or strengthened resilience to extreme weather events. One way to ensure that utilities can finance upgrades is by approving a permanent federal program that supports low-income households by helping to pay their water bills. This is critical to ensuring that everyone can be served, and community water systems can raise rates so that they can cover higher costs of supplying and treating water. In addition, smaller systems need grants and technical assistance to prepare congressionally mandated risk and resilience plans, so that they can respond to natural disasters, extreme weather events, cybersecurity breeches, sudden infrastructure failure, and contamination events.
* * *
Tanvi Nagpal is a senior associate (non-resident) for the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
The author would like to thank Rose Parker, program manager with the CSIS Global Food and Water Security Program, and Defne Aslan, intern with the CSIS Global Food and Water Security Program, who contributed research to this piece.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-potomac-river-sewage-spill-reveals-about-us-water-infrastructure
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: U.S. Military in the Middle East - Numbers Behind Trump's Threats Against Iran
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department, and Chris H. Park, research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy:* * *
U.S. Military in the Middle East: Numbers Behind Trump's Threats Against Iran
Once again, just eight months after Operation Midnight Hammer, the United States is poised to attack Iran. The naval "armada" in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean--with two carriers and 14 surface warships--is the largest in ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department, and Chris H. Park, research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy: * * * U.S. Military in the Middle East: Numbers Behind Trump's Threats Against Iran Once again, just eight months after Operation Midnight Hammer, the United States is poised to attack Iran. The naval "armada" in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean--with two carriers and 14 surface warships--is the largest inthe region since five carrier battle groups assembled at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The force is capable of punitive strikes on Iran and protection of U.S. allies and partners in the region. However, it lacks Marines, special operations forces (SOF) for raids or ground operations, and the logistics for an extended air campaign. It is also far smaller than what the United States used in 1991 and 2003 against Iraq for major combat operations and regime change.
The U.S. Threat
Initially, U.S. threats focused on protecting Iranian demonstrators. On January 2, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that "if Iran [shoots] and violently kills peaceful protesters," the United States will "come to their rescue." He followed up with tariff threats on Iran's trade partners. At that time, the United States could launch a punitive strike but lacked the capability to fully protect its allies and partners in the region, who feared Iranian retaliation. There was no aircraft carrier present because the USS Gerald R. Ford and its escorts had been sent to the Caribbean. To fill the gap, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group was ordered to the Middle East on about January 15 but took more than a week to arrive. The Iranian government had time to crush the demonstrations.
President Trump then demanded that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions--a long-standing U.S. policy goal. On January 28, Trump wrote that "a massive Armada is heading to Iran." He threatened another attack like Operation Midnight Hammer unless Iran "quickly 'Come to the Table' and negotiate a fair and equitable deal--NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS." The Ford was sent from the Caribbean back to the Mediterranean on February 12. Air forces followed.
The Forces Historically
The Middle East has long seen a U.S. naval presence, albeit at a low level in recent years. The force level jumped following Hamas's October 7 attacks on Israel. Figure 1 shows the level of U.S. naval forces in the region since the summer of 2023.
* * *
Figure 1: U.S. Navy Surface Ships in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean Since Summer 2023
* * *
The United States maintained at least one carrier in the Europe-Middle East region after October 2023. At the beginning of the second Trump administration, two aircraft carriers were in the Middle East as the United States launched air and naval strikes against the Houthis in Operation Rough Rider. Israel-Iran tensions also intensified as missile exchanges in April 2024 ultimately led to the Twelve-Day War in June 2025. In October 2025, the Ford carrier was sent to the Caribbean, and there was no carrier coverage in Europe or the Middle East. This was consistent with the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, published in December 2025, which saw an opportunity to pull forces from the region because Iran and its proxies had been beaten down.
The "Armada"
The current naval deployment marks a new apex of ships in and around the Middle East since the beginning of the regional war in 2023. Figure 2 compares the "Middle East armada" to past naval campaigns. The ships here are a different mix than those deployed for Operation Absolute Resolve that captured Nicolas Maduro and his wife on January 3, 2026. In the Caribbean, an afloat staging base served as a mothership for SOF. There was also an amphibious ready group operating with 2,200 Marines. Neither capability has been deployed to the Middle East so far. Once the Ford arrives, the United States will have 2 carriers, 11 cruisers and destroyers, and 3 small combatants in the Middle East.
* * *
Figure 2: Middle East Armada Compared to Past Naval Deployments
* * *
The level is comparable to Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1998. Then, President Bill Clinton ordered strikes against Iraq as Saddam refused to cooperate with UN nuclear inspectors. The bombing stopped after 70 hours, and Clinton stated that the objective to "degrade Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program and related delivery systems" had been met. However, the level of naval forces today is far below the level used in 1990 to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait and in 2003 to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.
Demand on Naval Forces
Today, 292 battle force ships make up the U.S. Navy--223 of which are commissioned warships (USS) and 59 are support ships (USNS). Most are in port or in maintenance and training, with less than a fifth of the force at sea for operations. A total of 51 Navy ships are at sea conducting operations, 18 of which are in the Middle East (16 USS and 2 USNS). The bottom line is that 35 percent of Navy ships that are ready for military operations are in the Middle East. Figure 3 breaks down the Navy battle force.
* * *
Figure 3: Middle East Armada as a Portion of the Total Battle Force
* * *
Total U.S. Force in Region
Alongside naval assets, the Trump administration assembled a large number of air assets in the Middle East. Forward-deployed aircraft in Europe can also be brought to the Middle East. Flow of additional aircraft to Europe and the Middle East continues--several F-22s arrived at Royal Air Force Lakenheath in the United Kingdom earlier this week. Table 1 lays out the naval, air, and ground forces currently in the Middle East and compares them to four benchmarks.
* * *
Table 1: Forces in Region Today In or Near the Middle East and in Past Military Campaigns
* * *
The table reinforces several key points:
1. The current force level is comparable to that used in Operation Desert Fox, which entailed four days of long-range punitive strikes. With today's force, the United States could launch 50-100 Tomahawk and other long-range missiles against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and other security forces or facilities supporting Iran's nuclear program. Such an operation would align with the president's stated rationales for using military force: supporting demonstrators and preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
2. The large number of cargo aircraft (C-17s and C-5Ms) and tankers (KC-135s and KC-46As) moving to the Middle East does not indicate any deployment of ground forces. Rather, these aircraft are bringing vehicles, support equipment, and munitions for the aircraft squadrons being deployed into the theater.
3. U.S. forces lack special operations and ground units needed to conduct raids or operations ashore. Snatching the Iranian leadership, therefore, is not a realistic option, particularly given the distance of likely launch points to Tehran.
4. The available forces are also insufficient for regime change beyond limited targeted strikes. It is unlikely that the United States will attack Iranian leaders, given concerns about retaliation and legitimacy. Moreover, the regime's resilience even after taking significant losses from Israeli operations suggests that decapitation will not destabilize the regime.
5. Finally, there are not enough forces for an extended, multi-week air campaign. That would require a substantial logistical buildup, which is possible but would take additional time.
If you are interested in learning more about this topic, explore CSIS's Executive Education courses Meeting China's Military Challenge and Inside DOD's FY 2027 Budget.
* * *
Mark F. Cancian (Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, ret.) is a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Chris H. Park is a research associate for the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-middle-east-numbers-behind-trumps-threats-against-iran
[Category: ThinkTank]
American Action Forum Issues Commentary: U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal - Is It Achievable?
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Shuting Pomerleau, director of energy and environmental policy, and trade policy analyst Jacob Jensen:* * *
U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal: Is It Achievable?
Executive Summary
* The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is expected to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years.
* In 2025, U.S. goods exports to India were nearly $39 billion, with energy exports accounting ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The American Action Forum issued the following commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Shuting Pomerleau, director of energy and environmental policy, and trade policy analyst Jacob Jensen: * * * U.S.-India Energy Trade Deal: Is It Achievable? Executive Summary * The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is expected to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years. * In 2025, U.S. goods exports to India were nearly $39 billion, with energy exports accountingfor about a third of the total. Based on historical trends, these exports are projected to total $261 billion over the next five years, leaving a $239 billion gap relative to the trade deal's target; even if India doubled its U.S.-imports growth rate, a $152 billion gap would remain.
* This insight summarizes the U.S.-India trade deal, analyzes the energy market dynamics between the two nations, and explains why India is unlikely to meet the trade deal's target - whether through total imports from the United States, or the specific goods outlined in the agreement.
Introduction
The United States and India have reached a trade agreement in which India is intended to purchase $500 billion worth of goods including energy, technology, and other products from the United States over the next five years. This deal also eliminates the 25-percent U.S. punitive tariffs on India that had been put in place to discourage the country's purchase of Russian oil.
Total U.S. goods exports to India were just shy of $39 billion in 2025, and are projected to reach about $261 billion over the next five years. But this would leave a massive U.S. import shortage of $239 billion for India to fulfill the trade deal. Even if India were to double the growth rate of its goods imports from the United States, there would still be a $152-billion gap.
This insight summarizes the U.S.-India trade deal, analyzes the energy market dynamics between the two nations, and explains why India is unlikely to meet the deal's ambitious target - whether through total imports from the United States, or the specific goods outlined in the agreement.
The U.S.-India Trade Agreement
On February 9, the White House released a fact sheet on the recently announced what it billed as a "historic trade deal" with India that "will open up India's market of over 1.4 billion people to American products." According to the document, India "intends to buy more American products and purchase over $500 billion of U.S. energy, information and communication technology, coal, and other products" over the next five years.
The fact sheet is light on details and does not specify which energy products would be purchased or a purchase amount by product category. Whether this includes natural gas, oil, or other energy-related products remains to be seen.
The U.S.-India joint statement released on February 6 provided a slightly more detailed description of the "framework for an interim agreement" the two countries have reached. Its key provisions are: 1) India intends to purchase "$500 billion of U.S. energy products, aircraft and aircraft parts, precious metals, technology products, and coking coal over the next 5 years"; and 2) the United States intends to eliminate the 25-percent punitive tariffs on India which had been put in place to discourage the country's purchases of Russian oil. Within the agreement, India has committed to stop purchasing Russian oil by swapping these imports with those of the United States and potentially Venezuela.
U.S.-India Trade
Total bilateral trade
The trade relationship between the United States and India has experienced steady growth over the past decade, with total bilateral trade increasing by roughly 135 percent. In 2025, estimated U.S. goods exports to India are estimated to have totaled just under $39 billion, while U.S. imports from India were close to $105 billion, both of which were a notable uptick from 2024. The primary U.S. export categories to India have been precious metals, mineral fuels, aircraft, mechanical appliances, machinery, and medical instruments. Since 2018, the number-one U.S. export category has been mineral fuels and other energy related products. The top U.S. import categories from India include electrical equipment, pharmaceuticals, precious metals, and organic chemicals. and organic chemicals.
Energy Trade
In 2024, the United States exported $11.4 billion worth of energy products to India, representing 33 percent of total U.S. exports to India. This amount only accounted for about 3 percent of total U.S. energy exports, however. Based on data from January to November, energy exports to India in 2025 are expected to have been $12.8 billion.
The largest categories of U.S. energy exports included crude petroleum, coking coal, and natural gas. As displayed in Figure 1, U.S. energy exports to India have remained relatively flat since 2022 despite a large growth spurt between 2015-2021.
* * *
[View Chart 1 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
In 2023, India imported nearly 40 percent of its crude oil from Russia at approximately 1.8 million barrels per day. This was a drastic increase compared to 2021 before Russia's invasion of Ukraine when India imported just 2.5 percent of its oil or 100,000 barrels per day from Russia (see Figure 2).
* * *
[View Chart 2 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
The primary reason for this increase was that Russian oil was sanctioned by both the United States and European Union, meaning Russia heavily discounted the price of its oil to those that would make the purchase. For instance, discounts were between $20 to $25 per barrel at the onset of the war in Ukraine and are currently at around $12. As of February 2026, Russia has widened the discount offered to China to about $9, likely to incentivize Chinese buyers to replace lower sales to India.
By comparison, just 4 percent of India's crude oil came from the United States. Furthermore, 14 percent of its liquified natural gas (LNG) imports and 8 percent of its coal imports came from the United States. India primarily imports LNG from Qatar (50 percent) and coal from Indonesia (42 percent) while Russia has not been a significant supplier of these specific energy products.
Trade Deal Practicality
The Trump Administration's objective to export $500 billion to India within five years is a tall order and likely an impractical target to achieve based on historical export growth rates. Over the past decade, both the average and median annual growth in U.S. exports to India has been right around 10 percent. This means that over the next five years, total U.S. exports to India are expected to total $261 billion, representing a $239 billion gap (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Even if U.S. exports to India grow by double the historical rate over the next five years, there would still be a $152 billion gap. Notably, these figures represent the sum of all U.S. exports to India rather than the discrete product categories identified in the trade deal, which suggests the U.S.-India trade agreement is more of a symbolic and political agreement than a realistic and binding trade pact.
* * *
[View Chart 3 in the link at bottom.]
[View Chart 4 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
India's Energy Consumption
In 2023, India ranked the third globally in terms of its total energy consumption, behind China and the United States. In 2024, India surpassed the United States to become the second-largest energy consumer in the world.
India has substantial demand for fossil fuel, which accounted for almost 95 percent of its energy consumption in 2023. In that year coal accounted for 59 percent of its energy consumption, petroleum and other liquids, 29 percent, and natural gas, 6 percent. The country consumed only a small amount of clean energy, with renewables at 4 percent and nuclear energy at 2 percent. In the same year, it was the world's third-highest consumer of petroleum and other liquids, and the fourth-biggest importer of LNG.
As shown in Figure 5, India has been relying on imports for most of its energy consumption. Its petroleum and other liquids production were flat from 2014-2023, while energy imports and total energy consumption trended steadily upward from 2020-2023.
* * *
[View Chart 5 in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Despite its large coal deposits and status as one of the world's top coal energy producers, India imports coal to meet its soaring electricity demand. It is estimated that coal will continue to be the major energy source for power generation in India through 2030.
About one quarter of India's coal consumption is for industrial purposes such as manufacturing steel. The coal used for generating power--thermal coal-- is different from metallurgical or coking coal, which is used to make steel. Coking coal typically contains more carbon than thermal coal.
Although India has vast coal reserves, it has a significant shortage of coking coal. More than 90 percent of India's consumption of coking coal comes from imports. As the second-largest producer of crude steel, India plans to double its steel production between now and 2030. India's coking coal imports are estimated to reach 160 million tons by 2030. Top countries exporting coking coal to India include Australia, the United States, and Russia.
India's large demand for coking coal and a lack of domestic production capabilities give the United States an opportunity to continue to grow its exports of coking coal to the country. This may explain why coking coal is specifically mentioned in the joint statement as one product that India intends to purchase from the United States. The U.S. coal energy industry currently has strong support from the administration through a series of executive orders and a production tax credit included in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Conclusion
Given the U.S.-India energy market dynamics and trade relationship, it is unlikely that India will be able to achieve the intended imports target within the next five years. The trade deal's $500 billion number for the selected traded products seems to be symbolic rather than practical.
* * *
Shuting Pomerleau is the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the American Action Forum
Jacob Jensen is the Trade Policy Analyst at the American Action Forum.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/u-s-india-energy-trade-deal-is-it-achievable/
[Category: Think Tank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Townhall: Transparency Is Public Safety - Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by political strategist Zach Freimark to Townhall:* * *
Transparency Is Public Safety: Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter
On March 7, 2025, 39-year-old Rick Clemmer was found dead in his East Side St. Paul, Minnesota apartment after several days without contact from medical providers paid to oversee his care. The medical examiner attributed his death to an enlarged heart. But for his mother, Mickey Clemmer, that explanation left the most troubling question unanswered: ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by political strategist Zach Freimark to Townhall: * * * Transparency Is Public Safety: Medicaid Oversight and Honest Governance Matter On March 7, 2025, 39-year-old Rick Clemmer was found dead in his East Side St. Paul, Minnesota apartment after several days without contact from medical providers paid to oversee his care. The medical examiner attributed his death to an enlarged heart. But for his mother, Mickey Clemmer, that explanation left the most troubling question unanswered:how did a man enrolled in a Medicaid-funded program designed to provide daily supervision end up entirely alone?
Rick Clemmer had long struggled with severe mental illness and substance-use disorder. For most of his adult life, he lived in regulated environments where court-ordered treatment plans and routine monitoring helped keep him stable. In the summer of 2024, he transitioned to independent housing through Minnesota's Integrated Community Supports (ICS) program--a Medicaid benefit intended to provide daily, one-on-one assistance with medication adherence, safety checks, meal preparation, and basic household management for individuals with complex behavioral health needs.
According to reported billing records, his provider, Ultimate Home Health Services LLC, charged Medicaid roughly $462 per day--equivalent to about 12 hours of care. That is more than double the average daily Medicaid expenditure per beneficiary in Minnesota. Yet according to family accounts, those services were never delivered. Clemmer died unnoticed while payments continued. His mother has described the episode not as a paperwork failure, but as abandonment financed by taxpayer dollars.
To read the full article, click here (https://townhall.com/columnists/zachary-freimark/2026/02/20/transparency-is-public-safety-medicaid-oversight-and-honest-governance-matter-n2671528).
* * *
Zach Freimark is a seasoned political strategist and lifelong Minnesotan, born and raised in Stillwater.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/transparency-is-public-safety-medicaid-oversight-and-honest-governance-matter
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to RealClearEnergy: Affordable and Reliable Energy Powers Prosperity
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Jason Hayes, director of energy and environment, to RealClearEnergy:* * *
Affordable and Reliable Energy Powers Prosperity
Energy powers life. Affordable and reliable energy powers prosperity. That's not just a slogan. It is a truth that shows up in the price of a new car, the size of a utility bill, and the cost of filling up your tank. But, for too long, a costly and unscientific climate ideology has skewed our energy policies.
Since the Obama EPA's 2009 Endangerment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Feb. 20, 2026, by Jason Hayes, director of energy and environment, to RealClearEnergy: * * * Affordable and Reliable Energy Powers Prosperity Energy powers life. Affordable and reliable energy powers prosperity. That's not just a slogan. It is a truth that shows up in the price of a new car, the size of a utility bill, and the cost of filling up your tank. But, for too long, a costly and unscientific climate ideology has skewed our energy policies. Since the Obama EPA's 2009 EndangermentFinding was issued, this ideology-over-science mindset has driven up costs and pushed American families ever closer to energy poverty. Recently, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin pushed back by repealing the infamous ruling--a move that will slash regulatory costs and cut new-car prices. The result will be more opportunities for energy producers and manufacturers -- and rising prosperity for American consumers.
Few regulatory actions have stifled American prosperity more than the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Early in Barack Obama's first term, regulators determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could "reasonably be anticipated to endanger" public health. With that decision, they claimed the authority to manage the energy we need to power every sector of the American economy. The Endangerment Finding offered unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the legal trigger to implement sweeping federal mandates on cars, trucks, power plants, food, and energy producers nationwide -- all without a single vote from Congress.
To read the full article, click here (https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2026/02/20/affordable_reliable_energy_powers_prosperity_1166166.html).
* * *
Jason Hayes serves as the director of Energy and Environment at the America First Policy Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/affordable-and-reliable-energy-powers-prosperity
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources vs. Trump
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Feb. 20, 2026:* * *
AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump
Today, Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump:
"AFPI strongly supports the America First trade agenda and President Trump's authority to defend American workers and supply chains. For decades, foreign competitors have exploited unfair trade practices while Washington ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on Feb. 20, 2026: * * * AFPI Responds to SCOTUS Ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump Today, Leigh Ann O'Neill, Chief Legal Affairs Officer at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources v. Trump: "AFPI strongly supports the America First trade agenda and President Trump's authority to defend American workers and supply chains. For decades, foreign competitors have exploited unfair trade practices while Washingtonlooked the other way. President Trump changed that, and American workers are better off because of it.
While we disagree with the Court's ruling regarding presidential authority under IEEPA, this decision does not weaken the case for tariffs or the President's broader authority to use them. As AFPI argued in an amicus brief, the President retains clear authority to impose tariffs under other laws, including Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. AFPI will continue to support the use of every lawful tool available to put American workers first. America First trade policies work, and we will continue fighting to ensure they endure."
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh referenced the president's authority to issue tariffs under Section 338 and concluded, "So the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward."
AFPI proudly stands with President Trump on this issue and remains committed to advancing new policy solutions to strengthen American workers and build the strongest economy in the world.
Read AFPI's commentary on preserving the successes of IEEPA, available here (https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/preserving-liberation-day-successes).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-responds-to-scotus-ruling-in-learning-resources-v-trump
[Category: ThinkTank]