Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Think Tanks
Featured Stories
Rand Issues Commentary Commentary: Is Summer the New Winter? It Might Be for European Health Systems
SANTA MONICA, California, July 25 -- Rand issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by research leader Rob Romanelli:
* * *
Is Summer the New Winter? It Might Be for European Health Systems
Ambulances are queuing. Patients are sitting for hours in overcrowded waiting rooms. Others, who have been lucky enough to have had an initial assessment, are lying on trolleys along corridors wondering when a doctor will see them. Scores of elective procedures are cancelled. The intercom system is flowing with the names of clinicians who are needed to assist with yet another critically ill patient. ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, July 25 -- Rand issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by research leader Rob Romanelli: * * * Is Summer the New Winter? It Might Be for European Health Systems Ambulances are queuing. Patients are sitting for hours in overcrowded waiting rooms. Others, who have been lucky enough to have had an initial assessment, are lying on trolleys along corridors wondering when a doctor will see them. Scores of elective procedures are cancelled. The intercom system is flowing with the names of clinicians who are needed to assist with yet another critically ill patient.Staff are overwhelmed, counting down the time until their shifts end, contemplating if they could even take another day of this.
This would be an all-too-familiar scene in many European hospitals in December or January, but it is also becoming an increasingly common scene in hospitals in the summer months, specifically during heatwaves, like the one that hit Europe in June.
In the span of three days, the UK broke three temperature records for the month of June, peaking at 37.3 C and exceeding the prior record set in 1976 at 35.6 C, a half century ago. On the mainland, temperature records for June were also shattered in France, Spain, and Switzerland.
July brought another heatwave, and more are predicted this summer. Is this the new normal for Europe, thanks to climate change?
The Copernicus Climate Change Service reports that between 1994 and 2024, global temperatures have risen by about 0.26 C per decade, meaning that the planet is now about 0.78 C warmer than it was 30 years ago. Europe, however, is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, or about 0.53 C per decade, over the same period, which means that it is now warmer by about 1.59 C.
As the planet warms, heatwaves--periods of several consecutive days during which daily temperatures exceed a specific threshold--have become not only more frequent, but also more severe, longer lasting and covering wider geographic areas. The rapid onset of heatwaves, so called "heat spikes," are becoming more common too, according to some meteorologists. During the June heatwave some locations in the UK experienced temperature increases of 10 C in just two days.
The resulting health-related impacts are becoming apparent. According to the 2025 Lancet Countdown Report, heat-related mortality has increased globally from 4.9 to 7.1 per 100,000 persons between 1990 and 2021, a 45 percent rise. Again, Europe is taking the brunt, where heat-related mortality has increased from 2.1 to 8.3 per 100,000 persons during the same period, a rise of nearly 300 percent. One study estimates that among the half a million heat-related deaths per year globally, between 2000 and 2019, 36 percent were in Europe, despite the continent composing only about 9 percent of the global population.
During winter, we have come to expect a higher demand for health services due to acute respiratory illnesses or injuries, such as falls or motor vehicle accidents, resulting from icy weather conditions. But increasingly, heatwaves, and hotter temperatures more broadly, are associated with a higher demand for health services due to heat stress and exacerbations of chronic conditions, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, asthma, and frailty.
A recent study published by Oxford University, using more than 4 million patient records from general practices in England between 2007 and 2019, shows that very hot days (defined as >23 C) are associated with spikes in same-day health service utilization and mortality. The Climate Change Committee, in their recently released fourth independent assessment of UK climate risk, reports that by 2050 heat-related ED attendances and hospital admissions could triple, with costs potentially exceeding pound sterling4 billion. Another study from Portugal examining 12 million hospital records between 2000 and 2018 found that hospital admissions increased nearly 20 percent on heatwave days, with children being disproportionately affected.
These statistics should alarm national, regional and local bodies responsible for the funding, organization, and delivery of health services across Europe.
To remain resilient to the impacts of climate change, governments must take action. This includes not only ensuring that the system can absorb the increased demand for services but also that hospitals remain safe environments for patients.
In the UK, an estimated 90 percent of NHS hospital estates, which are largely composed of older buildings lacking centralized air-cooling systems, are at risk of overheating and vulnerable to heatwaves. This is true of many hospitals throughout Europe, even in wealthy countries like Germany. But even in countries where hospitals have centralized air-cooling, these systems cannot cope under extreme temperatures.
The recent June heatwave is evidence of the consequences. As hospital ward temperatures rose upward of 36 C in parts of England, staff struggled to keep patients hydrated and in stabilized conditions. Medical imagining devices, like MRIs, and IT systems also failed to work, slowing down the flow of patients through the system and resulting in longer waiting times and cancelled appointments and treatments.
These incidences are costly. During a heatwave in June 2022, hospitals in London experienced an IT outage (PDF) due to cooling system failures at two of their data centers, leading to treatment delays and pound sterling1.5 million in additional costs to the English NHS.
Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a second edition of Heat-Health Action Plans, which is intended to serve as guidance document and an implementation framework, for responding to extreme heat as a public health threat. Within the HHAPs, the WHO emphasizes the need to build resilience into health systems.
Will European governments move at pace to protect its fragile health system infrastructure against climate change? This will likely require a substantial, long-term investment, but the cost of doing nothing is far greater.
* * *
Rob Romanelli is a research leader at RAND Europe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/07/is-summer-the-new-winter-it-might-be-for-european-health.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Is Summer the New Winter? It Might Be for European Health Systems
Ambulances are queuing. Patients are sitting for hours in overcrowded waiting rooms. Others, who have been lucky enough to have had an initial assessment, are lying on trolleys along corridors wondering when a doctor will see them. Scores of elective procedures are cancelled. The intercom system is flowing with the names of clinicians who are needed to assist with yet another critically ill patient. ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, July 25 -- Rand issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by research leader Rob Romanelli: * * * Is Summer the New Winter? It Might Be for European Health Systems Ambulances are queuing. Patients are sitting for hours in overcrowded waiting rooms. Others, who have been lucky enough to have had an initial assessment, are lying on trolleys along corridors wondering when a doctor will see them. Scores of elective procedures are cancelled. The intercom system is flowing with the names of clinicians who are needed to assist with yet another critically ill patient.Staff are overwhelmed, counting down the time until their shifts end, contemplating if they could even take another day of this.
This would be an all-too-familiar scene in many European hospitals in December or January, but it is also becoming an increasingly common scene in hospitals in the summer months, specifically during heatwaves, like the one that hit Europe in June.
In the span of three days, the UK broke three temperature records for the month of June, peaking at 37.3 C and exceeding the prior record set in 1976 at 35.6 C, a half century ago. On the mainland, temperature records for June were also shattered in France, Spain, and Switzerland.
July brought another heatwave, and more are predicted this summer. Is this the new normal for Europe, thanks to climate change?
The Copernicus Climate Change Service reports that between 1994 and 2024, global temperatures have risen by about 0.26 C per decade, meaning that the planet is now about 0.78 C warmer than it was 30 years ago. Europe, however, is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, or about 0.53 C per decade, over the same period, which means that it is now warmer by about 1.59 C.
As the planet warms, heatwaves--periods of several consecutive days during which daily temperatures exceed a specific threshold--have become not only more frequent, but also more severe, longer lasting and covering wider geographic areas. The rapid onset of heatwaves, so called "heat spikes," are becoming more common too, according to some meteorologists. During the June heatwave some locations in the UK experienced temperature increases of 10 C in just two days.
The resulting health-related impacts are becoming apparent. According to the 2025 Lancet Countdown Report, heat-related mortality has increased globally from 4.9 to 7.1 per 100,000 persons between 1990 and 2021, a 45 percent rise. Again, Europe is taking the brunt, where heat-related mortality has increased from 2.1 to 8.3 per 100,000 persons during the same period, a rise of nearly 300 percent. One study estimates that among the half a million heat-related deaths per year globally, between 2000 and 2019, 36 percent were in Europe, despite the continent composing only about 9 percent of the global population.
During winter, we have come to expect a higher demand for health services due to acute respiratory illnesses or injuries, such as falls or motor vehicle accidents, resulting from icy weather conditions. But increasingly, heatwaves, and hotter temperatures more broadly, are associated with a higher demand for health services due to heat stress and exacerbations of chronic conditions, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, kidney disease, asthma, and frailty.
A recent study published by Oxford University, using more than 4 million patient records from general practices in England between 2007 and 2019, shows that very hot days (defined as >23 C) are associated with spikes in same-day health service utilization and mortality. The Climate Change Committee, in their recently released fourth independent assessment of UK climate risk, reports that by 2050 heat-related ED attendances and hospital admissions could triple, with costs potentially exceeding pound sterling4 billion. Another study from Portugal examining 12 million hospital records between 2000 and 2018 found that hospital admissions increased nearly 20 percent on heatwave days, with children being disproportionately affected.
These statistics should alarm national, regional and local bodies responsible for the funding, organization, and delivery of health services across Europe.
To remain resilient to the impacts of climate change, governments must take action. This includes not only ensuring that the system can absorb the increased demand for services but also that hospitals remain safe environments for patients.
In the UK, an estimated 90 percent of NHS hospital estates, which are largely composed of older buildings lacking centralized air-cooling systems, are at risk of overheating and vulnerable to heatwaves. This is true of many hospitals throughout Europe, even in wealthy countries like Germany. But even in countries where hospitals have centralized air-cooling, these systems cannot cope under extreme temperatures.
The recent June heatwave is evidence of the consequences. As hospital ward temperatures rose upward of 36 C in parts of England, staff struggled to keep patients hydrated and in stabilized conditions. Medical imagining devices, like MRIs, and IT systems also failed to work, slowing down the flow of patients through the system and resulting in longer waiting times and cancelled appointments and treatments.
These incidences are costly. During a heatwave in June 2022, hospitals in London experienced an IT outage (PDF) due to cooling system failures at two of their data centers, leading to treatment delays and pound sterling1.5 million in additional costs to the English NHS.
Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a second edition of Heat-Health Action Plans, which is intended to serve as guidance document and an implementation framework, for responding to extreme heat as a public health threat. Within the HHAPs, the WHO emphasizes the need to build resilience into health systems.
Will European governments move at pace to protect its fragile health system infrastructure against climate change? This will likely require a substantial, long-term investment, but the cost of doing nothing is far greater.
* * *
Rob Romanelli is a research leader at RAND Europe.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2026/07/is-summer-the-new-winter-it-might-be-for-european-health.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Technological Progress in 'Time War' With the West
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by policy researcher Ryan Wu in the foundation's China Brief:
* * *
Technological Progress in 'Time War' With the West
Executive Summary:
* The People's Republic of China (PRC) has identified control over time, and the precision behind the "granting of time" as a critical capability. It seeks to weaponize "chronopolitics" to gain geopolitical and military advantages--precise timekeeping is critical for the military's intelligentized warfare doctrine and is perceived as essential for avoiding GPS ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by policy researcher Ryan Wu in the foundation's China Brief: * * * Technological Progress in 'Time War' With the West Executive Summary: * The People's Republic of China (PRC) has identified control over time, and the precision behind the "granting of time" as a critical capability. It seeks to weaponize "chronopolitics" to gain geopolitical and military advantages--precise timekeeping is critical for the military's intelligentized warfare doctrine and is perceived as essential for avoiding GPSdisruption.
* Two key aspects of Beijing's push for sovereignty over the technologies of time are the BeiDou Satellite Navigation system and the National Time Service Center, which help keep the financial system, the power grid, and weapons systems synchronized.
* "Time discourse power," the PRC's attempt to expand its global influence, is also evident in its growing importance in setting technical standards. By 2030, it hopes to entrench its timekeeping standards globally through developing the next quantum-based technologies that define the length of a second. Its strontium clock already accounts for 20 percent of the International Atomic Clock's national weighed calculation, which is shared between the United States, Britain, France, and Japan.
-
In the spring of 1996, the People's Republic of China (PRC) launched missiles into the sea around Taiwan to intimidate the island before its first free and direct presidential election. Then, by accounts that have since hardened into legend inside the People's Liberation Army (PLA), two of the missiles lost their way after the U.S. severed connection to the American satellite signal guiding them (Sina Military, December 31, 2012). From that humiliation, Beijing drew an enduring lesson: to achieve absolute security in its capabilities, it would have to control the technologies that enabled them. In this case, achieving control meant exerting power over the measurement of time itself.
Time is fundamental to the operation of the modern world, and the task of anchoring it has often intersected with political power. When the great powers fixed the world's meridian at Greenwich, England, in 1884, the clocks of all nations were forced to tick in line with British naval supremacy. Today, modern financial markets, satellites in orbit, and precision weapons all depend on a common understanding of time that is exact to the microsecond.
Beijing has long shared this view of its importance. The National Time Service Center (NTSC) describes time as a "core strategic resource for the state" and state media has similarly described synchronized time as a "strategic instrument bearing on national security". Top scientists, meanwhile, have declared that "wherever the nation's interests extend, its timing service will follow", and that "in an age of precision strike, the atomic clock matters no less than the atomic bomb" (Xinhua, February 10, 2022; NSTC, May 29). As this suggests, "chronopolitics" is also central to military strategy, which weaponizes time with a view to converting control of the clock into military advantage and geopolitical power (Chinese Social Sciences Net, March 6, 2025; Taiwan Strait Studies, April 16).
Building a Domestic Supply Chain in Time
Central to Beijing's chronopolitical ambitions is the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System, the domestic rival to GPS. The PRC government casts BeiDou as a "spatiotemporal benchmark" that the country must build and run independently in the name of national security (Xinhua, November 4, 2022; China Brief, March 1, 2024). Every BeiDou satellite in orbit is a clock. Collectively, these "grant time", which they broadcast to keep finance, the power grid, and weapons systems synchronized (Yuyuan Tantian, October 19, 2025).
BeiDou is only the visible layer of a broader national system that fuses satellites with long-wave radio and fiber-optic cables into a single space-and-ground whole. This realizes an ambition that Qian Xuesen, the father of the PRC's missile program, articulated back in 1974, to build "a single great clock for China" (Xinhua, February 10, 2022). The BeiDou system is a mixed constellation that spans three types of orbits, unlike GPS, which relies on one. Its reach is increasingly global, with ground stations dotted along the partner countries of the Digital Silk Road (Reference News, October 10, 2025; Guangming Daily, May 28).
The key institution that issues national standard time in the PRC is the National Time Service Center (NTSC) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Located inland in Xi'an, it was initially set up in 1966 under the codename 326, and hewn into a mountainside with control rooms built to survive a nuclear attack (CCTV, October 19, 2025). The original purpose of the center, which now sets "Beijing Time" and transmits it across the country, was to support weapons developed as part of what was retroactively named the "Two Bombs, One Satellite" program (NTSC, November 10, 2022; Chinese Academy of Sciences [CAS], March 7, 2024; People's Daily, January 2, 2025). The NTSC's remit today is openly dual-use. Its synchronized time serves civilian applications including finance, telecommunications, the electricity grid, and transport, alongside military uses such as missile guidance, satellite tracking, and command and control systems (Beijing News, October 19, 2025).
The drive for autonomy extends down to the smallest constituent parts of each satellite. At the level of policy planning, the outline for the 15th Five-Year Plan calls for breakthroughs in quantum precision measurement, the field from which ever smaller and more exact clocks now flow (Xinhua, March 13). Those breakthroughs are already taking place. Wuhan University's Satellite Navigation and Positioning Technology Research Centre recently unveiled what it calls the world's smallest chip-scale atomic clock. The device, which measures just 2.3 cubic centimeters, is roughly a seventh the size of its American equivalent, and its developers are now mass-producing it in the hope of breaking the foreign monopoly on these devices (Guancha, March 19; Changjiang Daily, April 20).
State media coverage has linked the clock explicitly to the Party's political aspirations, describing its purpose as keeping the nation's "time discourse power"--in other words, PRC relative influence in chronometric technologies--in Chinese hands. The device already serves satellites in low Earth orbit, underwater BeiDou receivers, and drone swarms--all of which would be critical in a conflict in which PLA capabilities would be denied GPS access (Beijing Youth News, May 23, 2024; Changjiang Daily, March 12).
Time is of the Essence for the Military
Temporal precision is more important than ever for military applications. In 2017, the PLA Daily listed "command of time" among other new forms of battlefield control, and set it alongside older domains such as command of the sea and the air (PLA Daily, October 24, 2017). The PLA Daily article observed this development through the collapse of the U.S. military's kill chain from 48 hours in the 1991 Gulf War down to just 10 seconds in Iraq in 2003. Underscoring the growing importance of precision and speed, the article stated, "lose a millisecond at any link, and victory may change hands" (PLA Daily, October 24, 2017).
More recently, former chief of staff of the PLA Rocket Force, Lieutenant General Li Jun, urged the PLA to treat the "time battlefield" as a new domain of war, with its own wargaming system and tactical library for time-based attack and defense (PLA Daily, January 27).
Satellite navigation systems today rely on extreme precision in timekeeping, down to a billionth of a second: a one nanosecond lag time in a satellite navigation system causes an error of roughly 30 centimeters (Changjiang Daily, March 12; European Space Agency, accessed July 17). These systems also underpin the PLA's doctrine of intelligentized warfare, which seeks to fully remove human delay from the kill chain. This doctrine treats time advantage and the resilience of its time-unification system as core capabilities, and has spent several years working to build them (PLA Daily, February 2, 2023).
A recent alleged attack illustrates the PLA's sense of urgency. In October 2025, the Ministry of State Security accused the U.S. National Security Agency of penetrating the NTSC. It alleged that the U.S. government agency had planted tools to paralyze the PRC's national time standard on command. This, state media alleged, was the gravest threat the country's "time security" had faced to date, and amounted to an act of aggression in an outright "time war" (Yuyuan Tantian; CCTV, October 19, 2025; Sina, October 20, 2025; China Brief, November 7, 2025).
Time to Set Global Standards
The PRC's chronopolitics extends beyond the military domain. A broader campaign sees it as part of Beijing's attempts to influence international technical standards that others must follow. In 2021, the Party leadership issued a "National Standardization Outline" committing the PRC to build a standards system "with Chinese characteristics" by 2035 that the rest of the world would adopt as its own (Xinhua, October 10, 2021). As the PLA Daily had put the motivation for this several years prior, "whoever commands the standard commands all under heaven" (PLA Daily, November 24, 2017).
Beijing already has made impressive strides in shaping international standards. By its own official count, as far back as 2018, it contributed close to a third of the world's 5G standard submissions and was leading two-fifths of standardization projects. It now contributes over 40 percent of global 5G standard essential patent declarations and more than half of its global 5G base stations. It means to expand these efforts, and ultimately set the terms for the systems the coming century will run on, from mobile networks to artificial intelligence (Economic Daily, May 22, 2019; Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office, July 19, 2024).
The contest over standards became more acute following a 2022 vote by the world's metrologists to redefine the second as a unit of time by 2030. The new definition will likely be far more exact, since the optical frequency standards of multiple national time services are now up to 100 times more accurate than the cesium standard (BIPM, 2022; National Institute of Metrology of China, November 23, 2022; CAS, February 21, 2023). [1] Optical clocks, which function by measuring these oscillations, are quantum machines, and the PRC has several advantages in the race to build them--it already leads on a number of subfields of quantum technologies, such as quantum communication (China Brief, June 11). The PRC's strontium clock NTSC-Sr2 now helps steer International Atomic Time, a standard that until recently only the United States, Britain, France, and Japan kept. Its weight within that calculation has climbed from less than 6 percent in 2021 to nearly 20 percent, the second-largest national share (National Business Daily, October 20, 2025; Science and Technology Daily, February 13). The PRC has also placed the world's first optical clock in orbit, as part of a system to distribute ultra-precise time (CAS, November 1, 2022; NTSC, February 12).
Conclusion
The PRC increasingly treats timekeeping as an instrument of national power. It sees control over its ultra-precise measurement as critical to its economy and its military, and as an avenue to enhance its influence internationally through setting global standards.
In a Taiwan contingency, this domestic technology would enable Chinese forces to degrade GPS through electronic warfare while their own units rely on BeiDou, solving a problem Beijing was first confronted with 30 years ago. As more countries adopt the system, its resilience will grow even further.
Where the United States and much of Europe still keep time overwhelmingly based on satellite signals, the PRC has fused satellite, long-wave, and fiber-optic cables into a single, integrated civil-military architecture. Beijing's weight in global timekeeping is climbing and its standards are spreading. The longer Washington and its allies treat time as settled infrastructure rather than contested terrain, the more of it they stand to forfeit.
* * *
Ryan Wu is a London-based policy researcher specializing in China's foreign policy and geoeconomics.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/technological-progress-in-time-war-with-the-west/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Technological Progress in 'Time War' With the West
Executive Summary:
* The People's Republic of China (PRC) has identified control over time, and the precision behind the "granting of time" as a critical capability. It seeks to weaponize "chronopolitics" to gain geopolitical and military advantages--precise timekeeping is critical for the military's intelligentized warfare doctrine and is perceived as essential for avoiding GPS ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 25 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by policy researcher Ryan Wu in the foundation's China Brief: * * * Technological Progress in 'Time War' With the West Executive Summary: * The People's Republic of China (PRC) has identified control over time, and the precision behind the "granting of time" as a critical capability. It seeks to weaponize "chronopolitics" to gain geopolitical and military advantages--precise timekeeping is critical for the military's intelligentized warfare doctrine and is perceived as essential for avoiding GPSdisruption.
* Two key aspects of Beijing's push for sovereignty over the technologies of time are the BeiDou Satellite Navigation system and the National Time Service Center, which help keep the financial system, the power grid, and weapons systems synchronized.
* "Time discourse power," the PRC's attempt to expand its global influence, is also evident in its growing importance in setting technical standards. By 2030, it hopes to entrench its timekeeping standards globally through developing the next quantum-based technologies that define the length of a second. Its strontium clock already accounts for 20 percent of the International Atomic Clock's national weighed calculation, which is shared between the United States, Britain, France, and Japan.
-
In the spring of 1996, the People's Republic of China (PRC) launched missiles into the sea around Taiwan to intimidate the island before its first free and direct presidential election. Then, by accounts that have since hardened into legend inside the People's Liberation Army (PLA), two of the missiles lost their way after the U.S. severed connection to the American satellite signal guiding them (Sina Military, December 31, 2012). From that humiliation, Beijing drew an enduring lesson: to achieve absolute security in its capabilities, it would have to control the technologies that enabled them. In this case, achieving control meant exerting power over the measurement of time itself.
Time is fundamental to the operation of the modern world, and the task of anchoring it has often intersected with political power. When the great powers fixed the world's meridian at Greenwich, England, in 1884, the clocks of all nations were forced to tick in line with British naval supremacy. Today, modern financial markets, satellites in orbit, and precision weapons all depend on a common understanding of time that is exact to the microsecond.
Beijing has long shared this view of its importance. The National Time Service Center (NTSC) describes time as a "core strategic resource for the state" and state media has similarly described synchronized time as a "strategic instrument bearing on national security". Top scientists, meanwhile, have declared that "wherever the nation's interests extend, its timing service will follow", and that "in an age of precision strike, the atomic clock matters no less than the atomic bomb" (Xinhua, February 10, 2022; NSTC, May 29). As this suggests, "chronopolitics" is also central to military strategy, which weaponizes time with a view to converting control of the clock into military advantage and geopolitical power (Chinese Social Sciences Net, March 6, 2025; Taiwan Strait Studies, April 16).
Building a Domestic Supply Chain in Time
Central to Beijing's chronopolitical ambitions is the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System, the domestic rival to GPS. The PRC government casts BeiDou as a "spatiotemporal benchmark" that the country must build and run independently in the name of national security (Xinhua, November 4, 2022; China Brief, March 1, 2024). Every BeiDou satellite in orbit is a clock. Collectively, these "grant time", which they broadcast to keep finance, the power grid, and weapons systems synchronized (Yuyuan Tantian, October 19, 2025).
BeiDou is only the visible layer of a broader national system that fuses satellites with long-wave radio and fiber-optic cables into a single space-and-ground whole. This realizes an ambition that Qian Xuesen, the father of the PRC's missile program, articulated back in 1974, to build "a single great clock for China" (Xinhua, February 10, 2022). The BeiDou system is a mixed constellation that spans three types of orbits, unlike GPS, which relies on one. Its reach is increasingly global, with ground stations dotted along the partner countries of the Digital Silk Road (Reference News, October 10, 2025; Guangming Daily, May 28).
The key institution that issues national standard time in the PRC is the National Time Service Center (NTSC) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Located inland in Xi'an, it was initially set up in 1966 under the codename 326, and hewn into a mountainside with control rooms built to survive a nuclear attack (CCTV, October 19, 2025). The original purpose of the center, which now sets "Beijing Time" and transmits it across the country, was to support weapons developed as part of what was retroactively named the "Two Bombs, One Satellite" program (NTSC, November 10, 2022; Chinese Academy of Sciences [CAS], March 7, 2024; People's Daily, January 2, 2025). The NTSC's remit today is openly dual-use. Its synchronized time serves civilian applications including finance, telecommunications, the electricity grid, and transport, alongside military uses such as missile guidance, satellite tracking, and command and control systems (Beijing News, October 19, 2025).
The drive for autonomy extends down to the smallest constituent parts of each satellite. At the level of policy planning, the outline for the 15th Five-Year Plan calls for breakthroughs in quantum precision measurement, the field from which ever smaller and more exact clocks now flow (Xinhua, March 13). Those breakthroughs are already taking place. Wuhan University's Satellite Navigation and Positioning Technology Research Centre recently unveiled what it calls the world's smallest chip-scale atomic clock. The device, which measures just 2.3 cubic centimeters, is roughly a seventh the size of its American equivalent, and its developers are now mass-producing it in the hope of breaking the foreign monopoly on these devices (Guancha, March 19; Changjiang Daily, April 20).
State media coverage has linked the clock explicitly to the Party's political aspirations, describing its purpose as keeping the nation's "time discourse power"--in other words, PRC relative influence in chronometric technologies--in Chinese hands. The device already serves satellites in low Earth orbit, underwater BeiDou receivers, and drone swarms--all of which would be critical in a conflict in which PLA capabilities would be denied GPS access (Beijing Youth News, May 23, 2024; Changjiang Daily, March 12).
Time is of the Essence for the Military
Temporal precision is more important than ever for military applications. In 2017, the PLA Daily listed "command of time" among other new forms of battlefield control, and set it alongside older domains such as command of the sea and the air (PLA Daily, October 24, 2017). The PLA Daily article observed this development through the collapse of the U.S. military's kill chain from 48 hours in the 1991 Gulf War down to just 10 seconds in Iraq in 2003. Underscoring the growing importance of precision and speed, the article stated, "lose a millisecond at any link, and victory may change hands" (PLA Daily, October 24, 2017).
More recently, former chief of staff of the PLA Rocket Force, Lieutenant General Li Jun, urged the PLA to treat the "time battlefield" as a new domain of war, with its own wargaming system and tactical library for time-based attack and defense (PLA Daily, January 27).
Satellite navigation systems today rely on extreme precision in timekeeping, down to a billionth of a second: a one nanosecond lag time in a satellite navigation system causes an error of roughly 30 centimeters (Changjiang Daily, March 12; European Space Agency, accessed July 17). These systems also underpin the PLA's doctrine of intelligentized warfare, which seeks to fully remove human delay from the kill chain. This doctrine treats time advantage and the resilience of its time-unification system as core capabilities, and has spent several years working to build them (PLA Daily, February 2, 2023).
A recent alleged attack illustrates the PLA's sense of urgency. In October 2025, the Ministry of State Security accused the U.S. National Security Agency of penetrating the NTSC. It alleged that the U.S. government agency had planted tools to paralyze the PRC's national time standard on command. This, state media alleged, was the gravest threat the country's "time security" had faced to date, and amounted to an act of aggression in an outright "time war" (Yuyuan Tantian; CCTV, October 19, 2025; Sina, October 20, 2025; China Brief, November 7, 2025).
Time to Set Global Standards
The PRC's chronopolitics extends beyond the military domain. A broader campaign sees it as part of Beijing's attempts to influence international technical standards that others must follow. In 2021, the Party leadership issued a "National Standardization Outline" committing the PRC to build a standards system "with Chinese characteristics" by 2035 that the rest of the world would adopt as its own (Xinhua, October 10, 2021). As the PLA Daily had put the motivation for this several years prior, "whoever commands the standard commands all under heaven" (PLA Daily, November 24, 2017).
Beijing already has made impressive strides in shaping international standards. By its own official count, as far back as 2018, it contributed close to a third of the world's 5G standard submissions and was leading two-fifths of standardization projects. It now contributes over 40 percent of global 5G standard essential patent declarations and more than half of its global 5G base stations. It means to expand these efforts, and ultimately set the terms for the systems the coming century will run on, from mobile networks to artificial intelligence (Economic Daily, May 22, 2019; Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office, July 19, 2024).
The contest over standards became more acute following a 2022 vote by the world's metrologists to redefine the second as a unit of time by 2030. The new definition will likely be far more exact, since the optical frequency standards of multiple national time services are now up to 100 times more accurate than the cesium standard (BIPM, 2022; National Institute of Metrology of China, November 23, 2022; CAS, February 21, 2023). [1] Optical clocks, which function by measuring these oscillations, are quantum machines, and the PRC has several advantages in the race to build them--it already leads on a number of subfields of quantum technologies, such as quantum communication (China Brief, June 11). The PRC's strontium clock NTSC-Sr2 now helps steer International Atomic Time, a standard that until recently only the United States, Britain, France, and Japan kept. Its weight within that calculation has climbed from less than 6 percent in 2021 to nearly 20 percent, the second-largest national share (National Business Daily, October 20, 2025; Science and Technology Daily, February 13). The PRC has also placed the world's first optical clock in orbit, as part of a system to distribute ultra-precise time (CAS, November 1, 2022; NTSC, February 12).
Conclusion
The PRC increasingly treats timekeeping as an instrument of national power. It sees control over its ultra-precise measurement as critical to its economy and its military, and as an avenue to enhance its influence internationally through setting global standards.
In a Taiwan contingency, this domestic technology would enable Chinese forces to degrade GPS through electronic warfare while their own units rely on BeiDou, solving a problem Beijing was first confronted with 30 years ago. As more countries adopt the system, its resilience will grow even further.
Where the United States and much of Europe still keep time overwhelmingly based on satellite signals, the PRC has fused satellite, long-wave, and fiber-optic cables into a single, integrated civil-military architecture. Beijing's weight in global timekeeping is climbing and its standards are spreading. The longer Washington and its allies treat time as settled infrastructure rather than contested terrain, the more of it they stand to forfeit.
* * *
Ryan Wu is a London-based policy researcher specializing in China's foreign policy and geoeconomics.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/technological-progress-in-time-war-with-the-west/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to National Review: Don't Give Up on Jimmy Lai
WASHINGTON, July 25 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by Nina Shea, director and senior fellow of the Center for Religious Freedom, to National Review:
* * *
Don't Give Up on Jimmy Lai
Pastor Ezra Jin's release is a reason to celebrate, but the US shouldn't rest until Lai is freed.
-
At the China summit in May, President Donald Trump asked Chinese Communist Party Secretary General Xi Jinping to release prisoners of conscience pastor Ezra Jin and Jimmy Lai. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 25 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by Nina Shea, director and senior fellow of the Center for Religious Freedom, to National Review: * * * Don't Give Up on Jimmy Lai Pastor Ezra Jin's release is a reason to celebrate, but the US shouldn't rest until Lai is freed. - At the China summit in May, President Donald Trump asked Chinese Communist Party Secretary General Xi Jinping to release prisoners of conscience pastor Ezra Jin and Jimmy Lai.Only one of them, Jin, the founding head of China's large evangelical Zion Church, was subsequently freed.
Trump said Xi, who is also China's president, told him it would be "tough" to free Lai, the independent press founder who is serving a 20-year sentence for pro-democracy advocacy in Hong Kong. Our president should recognize that under China's communist party system, these cases are only as tough as Xi makes them. The two heads of state are to meet again in September, in Washington, giving the president another shot at freeing Lai.
U.S. State Department officials call Jin's release "unprecedented," and the pastor himself told me it was a "miracle." Typically, China grants diplomatic requests for a prisoner's release when there's a prisoner exchange or when the prisoner is very ill. Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo, for example, died of cancer within weeks of receiving medical parole in 2017. Trump deserves much credit for rescuing Jin.
Because of Trump's direct intervention, Xi ordered prison authorities on July 3 to have the pastor change out of his prison garb and taken from his crowded cell in Beihai's detention center where he had been since his arrest last October. A large contingent of police put him on a train and filled the other seats of his train car to prevent any contact with the public. Jin understandably thought he was being transferred to a secret place of detention. Instead, he was put on an Air China flight to Los Angeles. After the plane door closed, the person seated next to him introduced himself as a U.S. consular official. He informed the pastor that when they landed, he would be a free man. Within hours, he and his jubilant family were reunited, and, giving praise to God, watched a Fourth of July fireworks display.
Last week, I attended a welcome party in Washington for Jin, where everyone was moved to hear about his ordeal and share in the joy of his family -- his wife Anna Liu, daughter Grace, and son-in-law Bill Drexel, a Hudson Institute colleague. Prior to his release, they had not seen him for eight years.
The celebration also honored the pastor's fearless defense of religious freedom. For years, Jin has resisted government pressure to incorporate Zion Church into the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, the CCP's United Front group through which the party exerts control over Protestant churches. Zion's unregistered church network grew to be among China's largest with thousands of members in 40 cities. It is part of the tens-of-millions-strong Christian underground, among China's few remaining independent civic society organizations. In 2018, after Jin refused to allow facial recognition cameras inside his church, the government confiscated Zion's properties. He then used the internet to preach until his arrest last year for "illegal business operations." He faced years in prison, apparently for posting his sermons online, which he told me were Scripture-based and strictly apolitical.
Jimmy Lai shares important similarities with Jin. He, too, was a prominent leader in his sphere of civic society, having taken peaceful, selfless stands to preserve freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. He is also a committed Christian as a lay Catholic leader, even generously funding the rebuilding of mainland Catholic churches that Mao Zedong desecrated. By placing God above all, and prioritizing biblical teachings over the sayings of Mao and Xi, both defied the CCP's goal to monopolize ideology in China.
The difference between the two cases, we're to believe, is that Lai was already convicted, albeit under Hong Kong's vague national security law, by a court boasting a 100 percent conviction record, whereas Jin had not yet been tried. By calling Lai's case "tough," Xi implies that his hands are tied by Hong Kong's separate governing system and independent judiciary. Yet, in 2020, Xi directed the CCP's imposition of the security law in Hong Kong for the precise purpose of tightening CCP control over the island's democratic institutions and curbing political free speech. The notion that he lacks the power to pardon Lai is laughable -- he himself consolidated these powers.
As a key leader of the still vigorous Christian underground, Jin was no less threatening to the CCP than Lai, whose Hong Kong pro-democracy cause and media empire the CCP has already dismantled. New reports estimate that China has arrested more than 10,000 Christians over the last decade, including hundreds just before last Christmas. Its other tactics to repress Christianity include bulldozing thousands of churches, banning children from all churches, and rewriting the Bible. The CCP spent a year planning Jin's arrest, his daughter Grace told me, and rounded up 27 other Zion leaders, eight of whom remain incarcerated. It has shuttered Zion churches and prohibits its services from going remote. Jin's family said that, in Washington, they believe they were under CCP surveillance, their car's tires were slashed while parked in their garage, and Chinese police called them with threats. For the CCP, the pastor was clearly a big fish despite not engaging in political issues.
Xi likely saw a political advantage in choosing the pastor for release. He is hoping it will induce complacency among American evangelicals at a time when China is cracking down on the Christian underground. A favored CCP text teaches that "a rising power should induce complacency in the old hegemon until the right moment," as CCP expert Michael Pillsbury wrote. Releasing him on America's 250th birthday was a nice touch.
President Trump should press Xi again to free Jimmy Lai. Determining who is imprisoned and who goes free is all part of a day's work for the CCP secretary general. And rescuing China's persecuted is undoubtedly important to American interests.
Read in National Interest (https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/07/dont-give-up-on-jimmy-lai/).
* * *
Nina Shea is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/human-rights/dont-give-jimmy-lai-nina-shea
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Don't Give Up on Jimmy Lai
Pastor Ezra Jin's release is a reason to celebrate, but the US shouldn't rest until Lai is freed.
-
At the China summit in May, President Donald Trump asked Chinese Communist Party Secretary General Xi Jinping to release prisoners of conscience pastor Ezra Jin and Jimmy Lai. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 25 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on July 24, 2026, by Nina Shea, director and senior fellow of the Center for Religious Freedom, to National Review: * * * Don't Give Up on Jimmy Lai Pastor Ezra Jin's release is a reason to celebrate, but the US shouldn't rest until Lai is freed. - At the China summit in May, President Donald Trump asked Chinese Communist Party Secretary General Xi Jinping to release prisoners of conscience pastor Ezra Jin and Jimmy Lai.Only one of them, Jin, the founding head of China's large evangelical Zion Church, was subsequently freed.
Trump said Xi, who is also China's president, told him it would be "tough" to free Lai, the independent press founder who is serving a 20-year sentence for pro-democracy advocacy in Hong Kong. Our president should recognize that under China's communist party system, these cases are only as tough as Xi makes them. The two heads of state are to meet again in September, in Washington, giving the president another shot at freeing Lai.
U.S. State Department officials call Jin's release "unprecedented," and the pastor himself told me it was a "miracle." Typically, China grants diplomatic requests for a prisoner's release when there's a prisoner exchange or when the prisoner is very ill. Nobel Peace Laureate Liu Xiaobo, for example, died of cancer within weeks of receiving medical parole in 2017. Trump deserves much credit for rescuing Jin.
Because of Trump's direct intervention, Xi ordered prison authorities on July 3 to have the pastor change out of his prison garb and taken from his crowded cell in Beihai's detention center where he had been since his arrest last October. A large contingent of police put him on a train and filled the other seats of his train car to prevent any contact with the public. Jin understandably thought he was being transferred to a secret place of detention. Instead, he was put on an Air China flight to Los Angeles. After the plane door closed, the person seated next to him introduced himself as a U.S. consular official. He informed the pastor that when they landed, he would be a free man. Within hours, he and his jubilant family were reunited, and, giving praise to God, watched a Fourth of July fireworks display.
Last week, I attended a welcome party in Washington for Jin, where everyone was moved to hear about his ordeal and share in the joy of his family -- his wife Anna Liu, daughter Grace, and son-in-law Bill Drexel, a Hudson Institute colleague. Prior to his release, they had not seen him for eight years.
The celebration also honored the pastor's fearless defense of religious freedom. For years, Jin has resisted government pressure to incorporate Zion Church into the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, the CCP's United Front group through which the party exerts control over Protestant churches. Zion's unregistered church network grew to be among China's largest with thousands of members in 40 cities. It is part of the tens-of-millions-strong Christian underground, among China's few remaining independent civic society organizations. In 2018, after Jin refused to allow facial recognition cameras inside his church, the government confiscated Zion's properties. He then used the internet to preach until his arrest last year for "illegal business operations." He faced years in prison, apparently for posting his sermons online, which he told me were Scripture-based and strictly apolitical.
Jimmy Lai shares important similarities with Jin. He, too, was a prominent leader in his sphere of civic society, having taken peaceful, selfless stands to preserve freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. He is also a committed Christian as a lay Catholic leader, even generously funding the rebuilding of mainland Catholic churches that Mao Zedong desecrated. By placing God above all, and prioritizing biblical teachings over the sayings of Mao and Xi, both defied the CCP's goal to monopolize ideology in China.
The difference between the two cases, we're to believe, is that Lai was already convicted, albeit under Hong Kong's vague national security law, by a court boasting a 100 percent conviction record, whereas Jin had not yet been tried. By calling Lai's case "tough," Xi implies that his hands are tied by Hong Kong's separate governing system and independent judiciary. Yet, in 2020, Xi directed the CCP's imposition of the security law in Hong Kong for the precise purpose of tightening CCP control over the island's democratic institutions and curbing political free speech. The notion that he lacks the power to pardon Lai is laughable -- he himself consolidated these powers.
As a key leader of the still vigorous Christian underground, Jin was no less threatening to the CCP than Lai, whose Hong Kong pro-democracy cause and media empire the CCP has already dismantled. New reports estimate that China has arrested more than 10,000 Christians over the last decade, including hundreds just before last Christmas. Its other tactics to repress Christianity include bulldozing thousands of churches, banning children from all churches, and rewriting the Bible. The CCP spent a year planning Jin's arrest, his daughter Grace told me, and rounded up 27 other Zion leaders, eight of whom remain incarcerated. It has shuttered Zion churches and prohibits its services from going remote. Jin's family said that, in Washington, they believe they were under CCP surveillance, their car's tires were slashed while parked in their garage, and Chinese police called them with threats. For the CCP, the pastor was clearly a big fish despite not engaging in political issues.
Xi likely saw a political advantage in choosing the pastor for release. He is hoping it will induce complacency among American evangelicals at a time when China is cracking down on the Christian underground. A favored CCP text teaches that "a rising power should induce complacency in the old hegemon until the right moment," as CCP expert Michael Pillsbury wrote. Releasing him on America's 250th birthday was a nice touch.
President Trump should press Xi again to free Jimmy Lai. Determining who is imprisoned and who goes free is all part of a day's work for the CCP secretary general. And rescuing China's persecuted is undoubtedly important to American interests.
Read in National Interest (https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/07/dont-give-up-on-jimmy-lai/).
* * *
Nina Shea is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Hudson Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/human-rights/dont-give-jimmy-lai-nina-shea
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Weed Worries - Middle and High Schoolers Will Now Learn About Cannabis Use This Fall
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 Josiah Padley:
* * *
Weed worries: Middle and high schoolers will now learn about cannabis use this fall
Minnesota's schools are required to teach about CPR, STDs, mental health, and, beginning this fall...cannabis.
Minnesota legalized cannabis in 2023 and sales began in 2025, leading the legislature to enact a requirement that middle and high schoolers learn about the dangers ... 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 Josiah Padley: * * * Weed worries: Middle and high schoolers will now learn about cannabis use this fall Minnesota's schools are required to teach about CPR, STDs, mental health, and, beginning this fall...cannabis. Minnesota legalized cannabis in 2023 and sales began in 2025, leading the legislature to enact a requirement that middle and high schoolers learn about the dangersof cannabis use during their health education. The new cannabis education course will inform students, whose parents and friends now have easy access to the drug, about the possible effects on brain development and overall health.
Cannabis use includes old-school marijuana blunts, vape pens, THC gummies, edibles, drinks, and other forms of consumption.
The Minnesota Prevention Alliance (MPA), a newly formed nonprofit that promotes drug abstinence education, won a Minnesota contract to develop a state-approved guidebook. The guidebook promotes a science-based approach to cannabis education. From KSTP:
"Ken Winters, a former University of Minnesota psychiatry professor and a research advisor for the foundation, said the guidebook was created because many schools are not teaching drug prevention in a way that meets the new standards."
""We realize a lot of schools maybe did drug prevention at a general level, but they weren't focusing enough on specific cannabis topics that the state said are going to be needed in part of any prevention education...With the cannabis topic, they're going to be learning about THC, the main intoxicant in the plant, and its impact on brain development, learning, and mental health," Winters said. "And then they're going to also be learning how do you adjust to the new environment in Minnesota, since it's legal for adults, and it's also medicalized.""
The guidebook highlights three curricula choices that adhere most closely to MDE's curricula requirements. Those three programs are Stanford Medicine's Smart Talk, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Cannabis: The Facts You Need to Know, and Marijuana Prevention Plus' Marijuana Prevention Plus Wellness. It also includes supplemental curriculum pieces, several of which prompt students to discuss the harms of cannabis use with their peers and parents.
The abstinence-only approach that these materials take will likely confuse students whose parents and 18+ peers are now consuming cannabis products legally. American Experiment Policy Fellow David Zimmer argued that the well-intended cannabis education mandate is a paltry harm mitigation tactic, saying,
"I find it unfortunate that on one hand the state created an atmosphere of permissiveness with its 2023 "adult recreational cannabis" legislation, and on the other hand has to create curriculum to counter the impact of that very permissiveness. Given that decades of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) have done little to dissuade teens from drug use, I don't think we should expect much success from this new curriculum either. The whole scene has a "do as I say, not as I do" feel to it - and we know how well that goes over with teens."
While it is certainly true that adolescent cannabis use has incredibly detrimental consequences for overall brain health, physical wellness, and emotional well-being, it remains to be seen if the new health class can successfully encourage students to choose abstinence.
Whether or not Minnesota's experiment in legalization proves foolhardy, cannabis consumption is a significant part of national pop culture, and temptation will always be just a few clicks away. With some level of exposure always present, students should be well-informed about the risks they take when consuming these products.
The MPA guidebook encourages teachers to modify the cannabis education program to successfully connect with different types of communities. Hopefully, relationship and community awareness will create norms that encourage these middle and high schoolers to pursue a sober-minded adolescence.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/weed-worries-middle-and-high-schoolers-will-now-learn-about-cannabis-use-this-fall/
[Category: ThinkTank]
* * *
Weed worries: Middle and high schoolers will now learn about cannabis use this fall
Minnesota's schools are required to teach about CPR, STDs, mental health, and, beginning this fall...cannabis.
Minnesota legalized cannabis in 2023 and sales began in 2025, leading the legislature to enact a requirement that middle and high schoolers learn about the dangers ... 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 Josiah Padley: * * * Weed worries: Middle and high schoolers will now learn about cannabis use this fall Minnesota's schools are required to teach about CPR, STDs, mental health, and, beginning this fall...cannabis. Minnesota legalized cannabis in 2023 and sales began in 2025, leading the legislature to enact a requirement that middle and high schoolers learn about the dangersof cannabis use during their health education. The new cannabis education course will inform students, whose parents and friends now have easy access to the drug, about the possible effects on brain development and overall health.
Cannabis use includes old-school marijuana blunts, vape pens, THC gummies, edibles, drinks, and other forms of consumption.
The Minnesota Prevention Alliance (MPA), a newly formed nonprofit that promotes drug abstinence education, won a Minnesota contract to develop a state-approved guidebook. The guidebook promotes a science-based approach to cannabis education. From KSTP:
"Ken Winters, a former University of Minnesota psychiatry professor and a research advisor for the foundation, said the guidebook was created because many schools are not teaching drug prevention in a way that meets the new standards."
""We realize a lot of schools maybe did drug prevention at a general level, but they weren't focusing enough on specific cannabis topics that the state said are going to be needed in part of any prevention education...With the cannabis topic, they're going to be learning about THC, the main intoxicant in the plant, and its impact on brain development, learning, and mental health," Winters said. "And then they're going to also be learning how do you adjust to the new environment in Minnesota, since it's legal for adults, and it's also medicalized.""
The guidebook highlights three curricula choices that adhere most closely to MDE's curricula requirements. Those three programs are Stanford Medicine's Smart Talk, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Cannabis: The Facts You Need to Know, and Marijuana Prevention Plus' Marijuana Prevention Plus Wellness. It also includes supplemental curriculum pieces, several of which prompt students to discuss the harms of cannabis use with their peers and parents.
The abstinence-only approach that these materials take will likely confuse students whose parents and 18+ peers are now consuming cannabis products legally. American Experiment Policy Fellow David Zimmer argued that the well-intended cannabis education mandate is a paltry harm mitigation tactic, saying,
"I find it unfortunate that on one hand the state created an atmosphere of permissiveness with its 2023 "adult recreational cannabis" legislation, and on the other hand has to create curriculum to counter the impact of that very permissiveness. Given that decades of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) have done little to dissuade teens from drug use, I don't think we should expect much success from this new curriculum either. The whole scene has a "do as I say, not as I do" feel to it - and we know how well that goes over with teens."
While it is certainly true that adolescent cannabis use has incredibly detrimental consequences for overall brain health, physical wellness, and emotional well-being, it remains to be seen if the new health class can successfully encourage students to choose abstinence.
Whether or not Minnesota's experiment in legalization proves foolhardy, cannabis consumption is a significant part of national pop culture, and temptation will always be just a few clicks away. With some level of exposure always present, students should be well-informed about the risks they take when consuming these products.
The MPA guidebook encourages teachers to modify the cannabis education program to successfully connect with different types of communities. Hopefully, relationship and community awareness will create norms that encourage these middle and high schoolers to pursue a sober-minded adolescence.
* * *
Josiah Padley is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
josiah.padley@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/weed-worries-middle-and-high-schoolers-will-now-learn-about-cannabis-use-this-fall/
[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]
* * *
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]
* * *
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]
* * *
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]