Featured Stories
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Split in Russian Diaspora Deepens
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli:
* * *
Split in Russian Diaspora Deepens
Executive Summary:
* In the Russian emigrant press, a popular subject is the conflict between those who have left Russia and those who remain, even if these people hold the very same views.
* Russian emigrants hold different values and opinions, and it is possible to observe a split between political emigrants living in relatively safe EU countries and the overwhelming majority of Russians living in countries that have visa-free
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli:
* * *
Split in Russian Diaspora Deepens
Executive Summary:
* In the Russian emigrant press, a popular subject is the conflict between those who have left Russia and those who remain, even if these people hold the very same views.
* Russian emigrants hold different values and opinions, and it is possible to observe a split between political emigrants living in relatively safe EU countries and the overwhelming majority of Russians living in countries that have visa-freeagreements with Russia.
* This split is not only social and cultural but also quite practical. The lack of understanding by prominent oppositionists of the needs, problems, and risks of emigrants living in visa-free countries makes them easier prey for the Kremlin, both legally and psychologically.
-
Last autumn, Senior Research Fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) Margarita Zavadskaya reported that the negative feelings inside Russia toward emigrants are not only the result of propaganda. Some of those left behind in Russia believe that those who departed "left them to solve the problems" by themselves. Some preach to those who remain in Russia from a position of moral superiority (in the Russian information space, this is called "the white coat"). Zavadskaya emphasized that "the sharpest pronouncements to those remaining in Russia, as a rule, are from people representing privileged groups unconnected to the post-war emigration," while "ordinary" emigrants continue to support their relatives and friends in Russia and stay in touch with them (Riddle, September 3, 2025).
Sociologist Anna Kuleshova shares this view. She notes that among those who emigrated after 2022, many travel regularly to Russia, maintain close ties with it, or even return and stay there (YouTube/@7x7, June 18). In interviews, Russian emigrants living in EU countries complain that European bureaucracy constantly worsens their situation, imposes restrictions on the use of banking services, and introduces additional checks on businesses (Radio Svoboda, January 7).
The problems of Russians living in EU countries have become a focus of "status" emigration. The situation of emigrants in non-visa countries, however, is more often ignored by opposition media. In the meantime, increasing numbers of Russians residing in these countries are experiencing pressure from targeted transnational repression from Russia regarding critics of the regime, and more "massive" pressure from the European Union related exclusively to their Russian citizenship (European Parliament, June 17). While such measures are intended to address legitimate concerns about Russian influence and security risks, they can also affect Russians who have left the country precisely because of their opposition to the Kremlin.
In November 2025, the European Commission called upon Serbia to tighten its visa regime for Russian citizens, declaring that Russians obtaining Serbian citizenship and thereby the possibility of visa-free entry into the European Union "threaten European security" (Deutsche Welle-Russian Service, November 5, 2025). In June, the Balkan service of Radio Liberty presented evidence that Serbia allegedly issued passports to a record number of Russian citizens. The article provides the names of oligarchs close to the Kremlin who received Serbian citizenship via an "accelerated procedure," that is, upon the president's decision that this was "in the interests of Serbia." At the same time, the text notes that a Serbian passport can allegedly be obtained in just three years, and therefore "perhaps even more Russian citizens have received Serbian citizenship as part of the standard naturalization procedure" (Radio Slobodna Evropa, June 10). As independent Serbian media have repeatedly noted, the article does not show the whole picture. The problem of issuing Serbian citizenship to persons close to Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime, including those under sanctions, does exist and has been described in both the independent Serbian and Russian-language press (Istories.media, April 16, 2025).
Reports on this topic emphasized that this procedure has nothing to do with naturalization in the usual sense. Immigration lawyers note that before applying for Serbian citizenship, immigrants must have resided in the country legally for at least six years--three years with a temporary residence permit and three years with a permanent one (Istories.media, April 16, 2025). According to the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the total number of Russians receiving citizenship in 2024 decreased from 532 to 188, and the "growth" mentioned in the article concerns only an "accelerated procedure" (Telegram/@volna_srbjia, June 8). The article confuses these procedures, and the previously mentioned European Commission document calling for a reduction in the issuance of citizenship to Russians does not mention the accelerated procedure at all.
In response to calls from the European Commission to limit naturalization for emigrants from Russia, Serbian authorities are imposing an unofficial ban on issuing passports to all Russians--including those who have already renounced their Russian citizenship. As a result, dozens of people are forced to remain stateless for years, possessing neither Russian citizenship nor Serbian (The Moscow Times, May 22, 2025). At the same time, no restrictions are being introduced on acquiring citizenship through the simplified procedure.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that even Russians inclined to be pro-European, living under such pressure, are starting to feel negatively about the West (Facebook/alexander.kynev, July 2). Russian propaganda is taking maximum advantage of this situation, averring that Serbia plans to introduce a visa regime with Russia and cut the issuance of residence permits by half (Izvestiya, May 28). Neither assertion is true, and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has denied them publicly (Forbes.ru, June 2).[1]
At the same time, practice shows that dependence on a Russian passport makes emigrants a convenient target for recruitment by Russian intelligence services, since, in this case, their ability to legalize themselves in another country depends on Russia (see EDM, February 9). Many Russian emigrants' desire to obtain another passport means they seek to break with Russia and build their own lives independently. Paradoxically, however, these attempts are hindered by both Moscow and the countries they seek to live in.
Many in the mainstream Russian opposition, which declares itself the representative of anti-war Russians, simultaneously ignores this situation and makes little to no effort to speak up to the European Commission for anti-war emigrants from "third countries." Lobbying for "gray" passports for victims of transnational repression concerns only people living in the European Union. It does not affect visa-free countries where hundreds of thousands of Russians live (Meduza, June 26). As a result, many of these individuals feel abandoned and betrayed by Europe and their former like-minded associates, making them easy targets for Russian intelligence services both psychologically and legally.
* * *
Kassie Corelli is an analyst with The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/split-in-russian-diaspora-deepens/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute Warns of Structural Weakness in Investment in Germany
MUNICH, Germany, July 25 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 24, 2026:
* * *
ifo Institute Warns of Structural Weakness in Investment in Germany
The willingness of German industry to invest remains weak overall. That's according to several surveys by the ifo Institute. "The weakness in investment reveals a structural problem in German industry. The lack of momentum in major industries such as mechanical engineering and the automotive industry cannot be offset by rising investment in dynamic sectors such as the pharmaceutical or semiconductor industries. That puts a strain
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, July 25 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release on July 24, 2026:
* * *
ifo Institute Warns of Structural Weakness in Investment in Germany
The willingness of German industry to invest remains weak overall. That's according to several surveys by the ifo Institute. "The weakness in investment reveals a structural problem in German industry. The lack of momentum in major industries such as mechanical engineering and the automotive industry cannot be offset by rising investment in dynamic sectors such as the pharmaceutical or semiconductor industries. That puts a strainon the industry's growth prospects," says Oliver Falck, Director of the ifo Center for the Economics of Innovation and Digital Transformation.
In addition to data from the German Federal Statistical Office, the ifo researchers analyzed data from the ifo Business Surveys and current investment projects posted online. According to their analysis, the majority of companies planned less investment in 2025 than in the previous year, and the willingness to invest also remains weak overall for 2026. However, there are currently signs of increased investment activity in key areas.
In the automotive industry, development is being driven primarily by investments made by individual large companies in the field of electric mobility; in the pharmaceutical industry, investment projects are focused primarily on expanding research and production capacities in promising therapeutic areas. In metal production as well, both the number of investment projects and the volume of investment exceed expectations. "The manufacture of other transport equipment stands out in particular. This reflects the sharp increase in orders for military technology," says ifo researcher Amanda Woodman Deza.
According to the ifo researchers, a sustainable turnaround would, above all, require improvements to the conditions for existing companies and support for disruptive innovations, particularly in high-tech industries. Crucial factors are clear political strategies and conditions for, among other things, decarbonization and digitalization, which are not subject to daily political shifts. "The industry needs planning security. Otherwise, it won't generate the momentum needed to improve the competitive position of German companies again," says Falck.
* * *
24 July 2026 Facts
Investments by German Industry: Current Developments Through July 2026
Official investment statistics from the German Federal Statistical Office are released with a significant delay. To map the latest industrial investment activity, the ifo Institute is therefore adopting an innovative approach. An AI-based web crawler searches publicly available sources, such as company websites and media reports, for information on ongoing and planned investment projects.
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2026-07-24/investments-german-industry-current-developments-through-july-2026)
-
2026 Monograph (Authorship)
Investitionstatigkeit der Industrie in Deutschland - Struktur und Ausblick
Anita Dietrich, Oliver Falck, Christian Pfaffl, Amanda Woodman Deza
Industriedynamiken in Deutschland - Teil 6
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2026/monograph-authorship/investitionstatigkeit-der-industrie-deutschland-struktur-und)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2026-07-24/ifo-institute-warns-structural-weakness-investment-germany
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: When They Say It's Not About the Fraud, It's About the Fraud
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 25 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by policy fellow Matt Dean:
* * *
When They Say It's Not About the Fraud, It's About the Fraud
Walz Denies Reality as CMS Stops Paying Minnesota's Sketchy Invoices First
-
Governor Tim Walz's baffling response to the latest federal deferral of $199 million in Medicaid payments only make things worse for a state trying to go a day without reminding the rest of the country that crooks steal
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 25 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by policy fellow Matt Dean:
* * *
When They Say It's Not About the Fraud, It's About the Fraud
Walz Denies Reality as CMS Stops Paying Minnesota's Sketchy Invoices First
-
Governor Tim Walz's baffling response to the latest federal deferral of $199 million in Medicaid payments only make things worse for a state trying to go a day without reminding the rest of the country that crooks stealour lunch money. In a post on X, Walz responded to the latest withhold of federal funds: "it isn't about fraud - it's about cutting your health care so that Trump can afford tax cuts he gave to billionaires."
As H.L Mencken might have said, "When they say it's not about the fraud, it's about the fraud."
Governor Walz either believes that fraud is not real, or for whatever reason that it is not worth stopping. Trump wants better fraud checks before paying questionable invoices. Minnesota is the land of 10,000 sketchy invoices right now, so it makes sense that our Medicaid requests are getting audited for the third time this year.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator head Dr Mehmet Oz made it clear that his intent is to root out fraud by preventing it in the first place. Rather than "pay and chase" money to fraudsters (only to find that the money is spent by the time the crooks get caught) Oz is using investigators, AI and common sense to identify and stop payment for "funny looking requests."
According to the Administrator,
"CMS also reviewed Medicaid claims in 14 high-risk service areas in Minnesota. The review identified claims that require additional documentation, including expenditures linked to providers flagged through program integrity reviews and other claims with potential eligibility or billing concerns. CMS is deferring approximately $199 million in federal Medicaid payments while that review continues."
The same pattern has played out for years. Federal prosecutors have investigated providers in massive schemes involving autism services (EIDBI), housing stabilization, and related programs, with loss amounts in the tens and hundreds of millions. Walz's own Department of Human Services, under federal pressure, recently disenrolled more than 3,000 high-risk Medicaid providers after a revalidation process. Those are not Republican talking points. They are documented facts.
Dr. Oz is right. The old "pay and chase" model puts the crooks on easy street. It pays suspicious claims first, then spends years trying to claw the money back--if it can be found at all. That approach has failed Minnesota taxpayers and the legitimate recipients who rely on these programs. Stopping questionable payments upfront, demanding documentation, and holding states accountable for the federal dollars they spend is not radical. It is basic fiscal responsibility.
* * *
Matt Dean is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
matt.dean@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/when-they-say-its-not-about-the-fraud-its-about-the-fraud-walz-denies-reality-as-cms-stops-paying-minnesotas-sketchy-invoices-first/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: NARUC - the Most Important Energy Affordability Conference You Never Heard of
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 25 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 23, 2026, by policy fellow Darren Nelson:
* * *
NARUC: the most important energy affordability conference you never heard of
I recently attended the most important energy affordability conference you probably never heard of. It was the Summer Policy Summit (SPS) in Minneapolis, hosted by NARUC. NARUC is the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a $18 million 501(c)(4).
Association
"NARUC:
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, July 25 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on July 23, 2026, by policy fellow Darren Nelson:
* * *
NARUC: the most important energy affordability conference you never heard of
I recently attended the most important energy affordability conference you probably never heard of. It was the Summer Policy Summit (SPS) in Minneapolis, hosted by NARUC. NARUC is the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a $18 million 501(c)(4).
Association
"NARUC:"represent the state public service commissions [PSCs] who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such as energy, telecommunications, power, water, and transportation and who have largely shaped the profile and substance of public utility regulation in America.""
Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is one of fifty commissions who constitute NARUC. PUC and PSC are the two most common titles for these commissions. One of the key things they all regulate are electricity rates, to some degree depending on competition.
"NARUC's Electricity Committee: "develops and advances policies that promote reliable, adequate, and affordable supply of electricity. ... State utility regulators are charged with 'keeping the lights on,' among other responsibilities.""
Conference
The 2026 conference started on Saturday afternoon of July 18, and finished on Wednesday morning of July 22. I was in attendance for the final two days. The top electricity themes were: affordability and reliability; clean energy transition; and hyper-scale date centers.
The predominate speakers I observed, at least in my day and a half at SPS, were: mainly public utility commissioners; followed next by utility C-suite executives; and data center energy influencers. Interestingly, the commissioners often went by the honorific "Honorable."
The conference was quite large and very professional. It had twenty eight sponsors, largely consultants, think tanks and trade associations, mostly from the renewables space. There was one nuclear energy sponsor, as well as several data center sponsors. Three of those latter ones were in the top four biggest spender categories: Amazon; Google and Microsoft.
Highlights
I took a copious amount of notes at the many sessions I attended. The topics were: extreme weather; data centers (DCs); clean energy transition (CET); and electricity affordability .
The session on extreme weather unquestionably accepted the presumption that climate change is human-driven and catastrophic, even though the UN backed away from the latter. The highlight was the head of Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) stating being thankful that, unlike electricity, natural gas was still fully reliable and largely affordable.
The first DC session tried to make things much more entertaining by treating it like a dating game show, between two female officials and two male DC negotiators. This approach was the highlight, as the statements made were 'motherhood' ones about community engagement, transparency and trust, along with community benefits outweighing the costs.
The session on federal intervention was about the recent "show cause order" by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The original concern was that FERC would try to bypass states on electricity in order to increase DC growth around the country, but that had subsided. The head of the Iowa PUC highlighted the great job FERC does in natural gas.
The second DC session, like most of the others, was largely positive about DCs. According to the head of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), new research shows electricity inflation was lowered in most states by DCs. However, the Independent Market Monitor for PJM had the opposite conclusion and, thus, favored a "bring their own new generation" solution.
The session on the clean energy transition (CET) was a surprising one. This is because, in contrast to Xcel Energy's renewables jihad, the head of the NY Power Authority emphasised the importance of nuclear power and fossil fuels, especially to NYC. Solar and wind electricity generation are minuscule in that state, compared to that of hydro, nuclear and natural gas.
The electricity affordability session brought together the big two topics of CET and DCs. The 'white elephant in the room,' of unreliable and expensive renewables in an age of unprecedented demand growth, was ignored. Instead, hyper-scale DCs are expected to help 'leapfrog' the affordability problem through more-than-offsetting economies of scale.
Resolutions
NARUC passed a number of non-binding, but influential, resolutions on the last day of the conference, and the day after. The following excerpts from two of those are at apparent odds:
"Whereas preserving state commission discretion to evaluate all relevant facts in a transparent evidentiary record supports effective and robust state regulation and gives state regulators the ability to help ensure safe, reliable, and affordable utility service over the long-term;"
"Whereas U.S. electricity prices are increasing, creating growing affordability concerns for residential, commercial, and industrial customers across the country;"
The chart below, from Dr. Janice Beecher of Michigan State University, confirms the second quote above and, therefore, calls into question the first quote above.
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
Stories
Not long ago, a public utilities commissioner spoke right before I did, at an event for inquisitive but impressionable students, regarding data centers. The commissioner, a conservative appointee, confidently asserted electricity is a natural monopoly. Orthodox and heterodox economics, along with American history and overseas reforms, suggest otherwise.
Far more recently, I spoke with a commissioner, after a long day at the NARUC conference, regarding public utilities regulation. The commissioner, a degreed economist, expressed a strong belief that electricity was in fact a "public good."
A case could be made that electricity fits the mainstream definition of "natural monopoly," but not a very strong case. The same could not be said of "public good," which is defined by textbook economics in terms of non-excludable supply and non-rivalrous demand, where:
"Non-excludability means that the cost of keeping non-payers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive."
Non-rivalry means "non-payers could [consume a good or service] without increasing the cost or diminishing anyone else's [benefit]."
Conclusion
There is a race going on between affordability-enhancing data centers and unaffordability-driving renewables. The evidence for the former is mounting, with some signs of waning resistance. The evidence for the latter is also mounting, with no signs of waxing denial.
And it increasingly seems to be, given their worldviews and real-world results, that NARUC and the PUCs are ill equipped to independently referee this race "without fear or favor."
* * *
Darren Nelson is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
darren.nelson@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/naruc-the-most-important-energy-affordability-conference-you-never-heard-of/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center Issues InfluenceWatch Wrapup on July 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 24, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interested
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following InfluenceWatch wrapup on July 24, 2026, by Jonathan Harsh:
* * *
InfluenceWatch, a project of Capital Research Center, is a comprehensive and ever-evolving compilation of our research into the numerous advocacy groups, foundations, and donors working to influence the public policy process. The website offers transparency into these influencers' funding, motives, and connections while providing insight often neglected by other watchdog groups.
The information compiled in InfluenceWatch gives news outlets and other interestedparties research to use in reporting on significant topics that are often overlooked by the American public.
CRC is pleased to present some of the most significant additions to InfluenceWatch in the past week:
* One Nation, formerly known as the Alliance for America's Future, is the advocacy arm of the Republican Super PAC Senate Leadership Fund. One Nation has received funding from the Concord Fund and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS). In 2024, it gave $4 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One Nation's president Steven Law is also president of Crossroads GPS, was the former chief legal officer and general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and served as deputy secretary of labor during the George W. Bush administration.
* Hands Off NYC is a coalition of labor unions, faith-based organizations, and left-of-center groups that protest and advocate against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities within New York City. Its listed partner organizations include 350Brooklyn, Climate Defenders, GreenFaith, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the Incarcerated Nation Network. Others include local chapters of the Indivisible Project, the NYC chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the New York chapter of the Working Families Party, and the Communist Party USA(CPUSA).
* Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce was a right-of-center advocacy group founded in 2011 to coordinate among right-of-center and libertarian organizations associated with Charles and the late David Koch. The group ceased operations in 2019, when it was replaced by Stand Together. By 2013, Freedom Partners had granted at least $1 million to the Center to Protect Patient Rights, the 60 Plus Association, the American Future Fund, the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, the LIBRE Initiative, the National Rifle Association, and the American Energy Alliance.
* HOPE CommUnity Center is a left-of-center Florida-based service provider and advocacy group that is involved in immigration, education, LGBT, and other issues within the state. In 2020, it made grants to several activist groups including the Farmworker Association of Florida and the Hispanic Federation. In 2024, HOPE CommUnity Center received funding from the Ford Foundation, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, NEO Philanthropy, the Tides Foundation, and the Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund.
* Aafia Foundation is an advocacy group based in Maryland created after the arrest and conviction of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani-born neuroscientist who was charged with the attempted murder of U.S. government and military personnel in Ghazni, Afghanistan. The Aafia Foundation has collaborated with Muslim advocacy groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) and American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). It participated in the January 2024 pro-Palestinian March on Washington for Gaza. Other participants included the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Muslim Student Association-National (MSA), the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), the Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA).
* * *
Jonathan Harsh holds a master's degree in political science from James Madison University and a bachelor's degree in political science from Beloit College.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/influencewatch-friday-07-24-2026/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Why the United States and Iran Keep Fighting While They Negotiate
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program and vice president of the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
Why the United States and Iran Keep Fighting While They Negotiate
Iran and the United States are cycling through moments of fighting and calm. Every time one side shoots, commentators declare negotiations dead. They are wrong. For both sides, fighting at the same time as they are talking, or "talk-fight," is the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program and vice president of the CSIS Defense and Security Department:
* * *
Why the United States and Iran Keep Fighting While They Negotiate
Iran and the United States are cycling through moments of fighting and calm. Every time one side shoots, commentators declare negotiations dead. They are wrong. For both sides, fighting at the same time as they are talking, or "talk-fight," is themost effective way to advance their interests. Paradoxically, it is likely also the fastest path to peace.
The grandfather of grand strategy, Carl von Clausewitz, famously argued that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Violence and diplomacy are not opposite, but tools to be used toward the same goals. When Iran shoots at a tanker, and the United States hits Iranian port facilities, and Iran launches missiles at Gulf neighbors such as Kuwait and Qatar, they are very much engaging in political intercourse by means of violence. They are not halting negotiations but continuing them.
Talk-fight is a counterintuitive way to negotiate. The traditional view on negotiations goes something like this: Diplomats spend weeks, even months, attempting to get parties to agree to a ceasefire, usually with the mindset that a pause in fighting will allow the sides the space and time to negotiate a permanent end to the conflict. In reality, months are eaten up by discussions over preconditions and negotiating about negotiations. In one infamous example, the parties in the Vietnam War spent 10 weeks arguing over the shape of the table for the Paris talks. If the negotiations stall and someone shoots, the process starts again with tedious baby steps toward a ceasefire. This approach is slow and structurally quite fragile.
In many cases, both sides have little incentive for a ceasefire. The side with momentum on the battlefield hardly wants to squander it. And the other side that is losing often wants to keep fighting to achieve an elusive "position of strength" from which to negotiate. Those are undefinable and rarely arrive.
If, miraculously, a ceasefire arrives, the spoilers suddenly hold all the power. A rogue actor attempting to undermine negotiations, third party intervention, or a miscommunication or mistake can lead to renewed fighting. If you build negotiations on a wobbly base of barely contained violence, you are asking for disruption and trouble.
The alternative is talk-fight, which is de facto what we are seeing between the United States and Iran. Politics continues by both means simultaneously--war and conversation. Parties communicate with violence and also with diplomats. The violence demonstrates political will, displeasure, and positioning for additional concessions. The talking seeks acceptable ground for an end--a real end--to the fighting.
Iran and the United States have defaulted to talk-fight for pragmatic reasons. President Trump has said that Iranian hostility towards shipping will be met with overwhelming force--he is signaling U.S. resolve and overwhelming military might, and he is attempting to force Iran to bow to superior firepower with concessions. Iran, on the other hand, wants to remind the world that it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz any time it chooses and signal that time is in its favor. It wants to use that leverage to get the most favorable terms possible. Further, Iran has a reputation for being an exceptionally difficult negotiating partner. It has the patience to outwait its counterparts, the domestic power to ignore the suffering of its people, and a track record of winning negotiations. Thus, for both sides, exchanging fire is communicating, forcefully, their political interests, even while talks are ongoing.
Still, there are risks to this approach. Clearly, violence is far worse than peace for the affected population. In this case, the casualty count is relatively low, but too many have been civilians. Further, the global economy is suffering paroxysms of uncertainty from every wave of violence. War may send a strong message, but for the people, it is a destroyer of worlds.
For the parties, Tehran could overestimate Washington's patience and unintentionally provoke a truly bruising U.S. response. Trump and key members of his administration have repeatedly expressed willingness to go after military-adjacent targets that would affect the local population, such as bridges and oil-related targets including Kharg Island, which could imperil any hope of economic recovery for years to come. The United States could underestimate Iranian resilience to continued attacks. For the Iranian regime, at least a perception that it won is essential to survival. It cares little if the global economy suffers--after all, thanks to a decades-long comprehensive sanctions regime, Iran is largely cut off from the global financial system anyway. Iran could very well outwait the United States, eager to see it sink money and munitions into this conflict. Their friends in Moscow and Beijing are happy to see it, too.
Commentators gravely state another risk: The fighting could escalate. This possibility is usually vastly overstated. Yes, each side could escalate in a talk-fight scenario, but that dynamic is less likely than when the fighting was intense and there were no negotiations ongoing. Just as there are incentives to fight, there are also incentives to contain the fighting.
Negotiations should continue with a stubborn resolve to be immune to disruption. These parties in particular will claw for advantage both at and away from the table, and both believe violence is a legitimate tool. The fastest way to achieve a real peace for the people of the Gulf and relative economic normalcy for the world is to talk on, no matter what.
* * *
Emily Harding is director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program and vice president of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/why-united-states-and-iran-keep-fighting-while-they-negotiate
[Category: ThinkTank]
America First Policy Institute Issues Commentary to Carolina Journal: Future of Rural N.C. Won't Be Built by Degrees Alone
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 24, 2026, by Kevin Daniels, executive director of the North Carolina state chapter, to the Carolina Journal:
* * *
The Future of Rural N.C. Won't be Built by Degrees Alone
When people think of North Carolina, they often picture two places: the Research Triangle that encompasses Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill; or the booming skyline of Charlotte.
But anyone who truly knows our state understands that North Carolina's strength isn't found only in its biggest cities. It lives in our
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on July 24, 2026, by Kevin Daniels, executive director of the North Carolina state chapter, to the Carolina Journal:
* * *
The Future of Rural N.C. Won't be Built by Degrees Alone
When people think of North Carolina, they often picture two places: the Research Triangle that encompasses Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill; or the booming skyline of Charlotte.
But anyone who truly knows our state understands that North Carolina's strength isn't found only in its biggest cities. It lives in oursmall towns, farming communities, and rural counties where hard work and grit still define a person's character.
For too long our education system has sent rural students one message: If you don't earn a four-year college degree, you've somehow fallen behind.
That message has done a disservice to countless young Americans.
The truth is simple: not every student is destined for college, and they shouldn't have to be. Success should never be measured by whether someone walks across a university stage. It should be measured by whether they are equipped to build a meaningful career, support a family, and contribute to their community.
To read the full article, click here (https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/the-future-of-rural-nc-wont-be-built-by-degrees-alone/).
* * *
Kevin Daniels, Executive Director AFPI-North Carolina
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/the-future-of-rural-nc-wont-be-built-by-degrees-alone
[Category: ThinkTank]
