Author: Dan Smith

The war on Iran: from the ceasefire to the off-ramp?

/ Dan Smith / 2 Comments

The ceasefire in the US-Israeli war on Iran brings cautious relief. The bombing, the missiles, the destruction and the killing can stop, which is unreservedly good. But ceasefires are tricky things. They reflect the dynamics of war as much as peace and the threats each side holds over the other persist. Israel and the USA can unleash physically destructive forces Iran cannot match. Iran can unleash economically destructive forces to which the USA has no viable response except more destruction.

That Iran’s strategy is viable is clear every time Trump blinks when the oil price jumps or the stock market slumps. And that strategy has given Iran the strategic initiative, which Trump’s threat to erase Iranian civilisation does not take away. 

Big blustery threats and swear words from Trump aside, what can we see unfolding amid the thick fog of this war? This is the second in a series of blog posts sketching out a few pointers I see to what is happening today and what may happen tomorrow and the day after. 

Continue reading →

The war on Iran: signals emerging from the noise

/ Dan Smith / 3 Comments

Through the nonsensical miasma of illogical, ahistorical, untrue and self-contradictory utterances by the American president and his administration about their war on Iran, each one more ridiculous than the last, a few things are starting to stand out with some degree of clarity. They are pointers of a kind to today, tomorrow and after that. This post and the next couple take a look at a few of them. This one focuses on the US build-up, the search for a way out, and the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not comprehensive in any way, just what I can figure out at the moment.

Continue reading →

Thoughts about a nuclear-free and ecologically sustainable world order

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

This is a difficult time to be talking about disarmament or even arms control. The geopolitical context is about as unhelpful as it could possibly be and it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is ratified by all the world’s states. And yet, talking about disarmament and imagining a nuclear-free world is what I do in an article newly published by the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. To make a challenging ask yet more demanding, my argument is that we – humankind – need a new order that will guard not only against the existential nuclear threat but also against the dangers arising from severe ecological disruption.  

What follows is a short version distilled from the first draft of the article. Among other things, it leaves out some of the political philosophy. For the full version, follow the link.

Continue reading →

Attack on Iran: unclear motives, unknown outcomes & energy vulnerability

/ Dan Smith / 2 Comments

In my previous post about the onslaught on Iran by Israel and the USA, I used the metaphor of a coin toss to say how hard it is to forecast the outcome. I left it to others to work out the motive for the attack, unpicking the incoherent contradictions in what the US President has said, weighing the various statements and retractions others have made. Instead, I pondered the question of regime change. It was once derided as a US goal by Trump but now he has adopted. Or maybe not since some of his recent statements boil down to saying the war is won though it is not over.

Anyway, as to regime change, I saw three possible outcomes: the hoped for democratic transition; an even more repressive state; and civil war. News that the CIA has been getting ready to support a Kurdish insurgency makes it seem that civil war is the likeliest.

Continue reading →

Attack on Iran: Israel and the USA have flipped the coin – where and how will it land?

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, assassinated President Hafizullah Amin and installed a more compliant government, it kicked off an era of war and terror that has not ended 47 years later. When the USA and allies invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, it initiated a period of war and terror that may now be coming to an end with a degree of political stability and less violence in the last two years. When France and the UK with seemingly reluctant support from the USA intervened in Libya in 2011, weakening the rule of Muammar Gaddafi so insurgents found and killed him, it opened a period of war and chaos that has produced a fragile balance between two competing governments and intermittent violent conflict between them.  

Continue reading →

The security dilemma in Northeast Asia: is European experience relevant?

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

38 North has just published my article exploring the relevance of European experience to regional security in Northeast Asia.

Faced by growing insecurity and destabilizing uncertainties, Northeast Asia lacks a regional mechanism to establish guardrails to manage the risks. The discussion about this is increasingly turning to the the European experience from a half-century ago in constructing a security framework in the form of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

At first look, the relevance is easy to grasp.

Continue reading →

Sustainable Defence in a Challenging Environment

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

For Europe, responding to insecurity and responding to ecological disruption are both era-defining challenges. In June last year, NATO decided to respond to the insecurity that member states and many, many citizens feel by increasing military spending to 5% of annual economic output, with a minimum of 3.5% devoted to what they called ‘core’ security, and up to 1.5% for cyber security, infrastructure and suchlike. No comparable pledge has been made for responding to the ecological crisis. Far from it, European (and other) governments currently seeming to be turning their backs on the green agenda.

There is an obvious risk that national security will divert and drain energy and resources away from other policies and priorities, such as welfare, health and education as well as the environment. And a further risk that the emphasis on national security and building up the military will have negative effects on the natural environment and accelerate ecological disruption.

Those are the risks. Does it have to be that way?

Continue reading →

Reflections on Venezuela, Trump and world order

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

As the world knows, on 3 January 2026, in an operation involving over 150 aircraft, US Special Forces raided Caracas, seized President Maduro and his wife, and took them to New York to be charged and tried as criminals, and the US President announced that the USA would now run Venezuela for a time. This use of force breached the United Nations Charter and rightly set off alarm bells and alert sirens all round the world. A future seems to loom before us in which the strong do what they can, and the weak do what they must. Why did it happen and what comes next?

Continue reading →

The Gaza peace plan after 7 weeks: 3rd assessment

/ Dan Smith / 3 Comments

IT IS TWO MONTHS since the Gaza peace plan was announced (29 September). A few days later, Hamas gave its conditional acceptance of the deal (3 October). On 8 October, the negotiators agreed a ceasefire, which was formally approved by the Israeli cabinet the next day. Implementation started on Friday 10 October.

This post is my third on the peace plan. As in the first and second, my aim is to assess it as a plan. I am not asking whether it was right or wrong, fair or unfair, but would it work? So, seven weeks in and one month after my last assessment, how is it doing?

Continue reading →

The Gaza peace plan, 2 weeks in: continuing assessment

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

On 8 October, two years and one day after Hamas’s savage incursion into Israel that triggered Israel’s hyper-destructive onslaught on Gaza, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio passed a note to President Trump in the middle of a press conference, then whispered to him to say he could announce that a ceasefire had been agreed.

So began the implementation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan that Trump had announced at the White House on 29 September. Discussion followed between Israel, Hamas and other interested parties – the USA, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and doubtless many others via standard diplomatic channels. On 3 October, after Trump set a 5 October deadline for Hamas to accept the plan or suffer “all hell”, Hamas agreed to release the remaining hostages it had held for two years, including the bodies of the dead, and repeated what it had said before, that Gaza could be run by a technocratic administration as Trump’s peace plan envisaged. As multiple news outlets reported, this was a partial acceptance – a “yes but” rather than full-blown consent. While Trump threatened Hamas with “complete obliteration” if it refused to fit in with his plan, the Israeli bombardment of Gaza continued, and negotiators met in Sharm el-Shaikh, Egypt, to get the peace plan on the road.

Two weeks after Rubio whispered in his President’s ear, how is the plan doing? I gave my view of it before there was any action, aiming to assess it as a plan, in its own terms, asking not whether it was right or wrong, fair or unfair, but would it work? It is what you could call a negotiations perspective, a technical assessment. In the same vein, two weeks in, how does it look now?

Continue reading →