Bottom Line Up Front

BLUFSince the missile strikes that killed Ayatollah Khamenei in late February, the Iran War has spilled over into a larger regional conflict, affecting several Gulf states and wide swaths of the Southern Levant. But as new as this war is, it has also revealed long-standing underlying regional tensions, notably the fight between Israel and Iran-backed militia Hezbollah based primarily in Lebanon. Israel had been planning an operation against Hezbollah for over a year, when Israeli intelligence officials had determined that the ceasefire between two was crumbling and the group’s disarmament had not come to fruition. Now, Hezbollah is engaged in what seems to be an existential last stand against Israel, while the strategy from Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz in response to this is to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon much like the one in Gaza. Lebanon is facing a humanitarian and refugee crisis, with over 1 million citizens displaced and daily life obliterated for the country’s most vulnerable.Today, I sit down with Katharine Sorensen, a reporter for The Beiruter, who has been covering these stories from the ground since October 2025. We talk about the political and religious structures that underpin Lebanon’s position within the wider war. More specifically, she breaks down why these structures make it functionally difficult for the country to escape spillover effects from regional conflicts, let alone act for itself.About the guestKatharine Sorensen is a reporter for the Beiruter, an English-language online news platform, and has been covering news from the ground in Beirut since October 2025. Previously, she worked as researcher at the Hoover Institution, as well as at Bain & Company in Dubai. Katharine holds a B.A. from Stanford University.MusicTomasz RedmanNoah Tan This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFOn February 27th, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth made an unprecedented announcement, listing American AI company Anthropic as a supply chain risk, effectively barring it from all current and future federal contracts. This designation came after the company refused to budge on their red lines preventing the use of Claude for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons systems. Anthropic sued the Department of War on the grounds that the government violated their rights to free speech and due process, as well as the on basis that the Department of War’s response was an arbitrary overreach of executive authority. Anthropic has a strong case to vacate the supply chain risk designation, but it may not prevent the Department of War from looking elsewhere for AI integration into the military.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo Clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxnfu0g5kGIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHNyvUXQJOI This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFOn March 1, two Iranian drones operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps flew into and struck Amazon Web Services data centers in the United Arab Emirates, and one more struck near a data center in Bahrain. According to the AWS health dashboard, the strikes caused structural damage and disrupted power delivery to a significant portion of the infrastructure at the affected sites. In some cases, AWS needed to suppress fires, which led to additional water damage. This is not an isolated instance. Throughout the war in the Gulf, the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Sudan Civil War, and the Myanmar Civil War, these types of attritable, flying weapons are becoming the tool of choice for militaries and militia groups that want both extended surveillance times and cost-effective weapons systems.Loitering munitions, also known as suicide drones or kamikaze drones, are autonomous or semi-autonomous aerial vehicles designed to hover around an area, collect surveillance data, identify a target, and engage it with their onboard warhead by flying into it. This article examines three such loitering munitions currently deployed in combat zones. The first is the small and common first-person viewer drone. The second is the Switchblade 600, a mid-sized tactical munition. And the third is the Shahed-136, a strategic “one-way attack” munition. While not exhaustive of loitering munitions, these weapons systems are redefining what modern warfighting means in the contexts of attritability, autonomous warfare, and artificial intelligence.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo Clip:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vit4q2RZ3Dc This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

For more context, listen to BLUF #9: Regime Change in Iran Will Require the Perfect Storm, but One Might Be Brewing:BLUF:On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a massive coordinated military campaign (Operations “Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion”) that effectively decapitated Iran’s top leadership, confirming the deaths of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several key military commanders. Following the failure of nuclear talks in Geneva and a massive U.S. naval buildup, the strikes targeted IRGC command centers, air defenses, and naval assets, prompting immediate Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases and Gulf allies. While President Trump has called for the Iranian people to seize this “hour of freedom” and overthrow the clerical regime, the path to successful regime change remains uncertain due to a burgeoning power vacuum, the lack of a clear U.S.-backed successor, and the risk of a protracted regional war involving Iranian proxies.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo Clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hjft_AZogEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovpSDbZSy0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyOkDvgnDhM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFIn a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court concluded that the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy broad global tariffs was an executive overreach of power. The majority argued that the language of IEEPA was not explicit enough to justify granting President Trump the ability to impose taxes, a power expressly reserved for Congress. Additionally, it agreed that the legislative history behind Congressional authority to regulate imports did not support an interpretation that Congress could even delegate such authority. The dissent argued that the national security rationale behind Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs granted broad authority to regulate importation as a means of conducting foreign policy, an authority that encompassed taxation. This ruling does little to stop Trump’s use of tariffs to carry out his foreign policy agenda. Still, it does open the door for up to $175 billion of tariff refund requests and potential renegotiations of trade agreements.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo Clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnMQnVTaydQhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/uVqODqu3uIkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5-e8fN1E7I This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFThe 2026 Munich Security Conference highlighted a shift toward “wrecking-ball” politics, where the U.S. favors dismantling the traditional rules-based order for a more transactional, “personalist” approach. In response to American volatility and issues like the diplomatic rift over Greenland, European and Indo-Pacific nations are pursuing “strategic realignment” and “double-hedging” to secure their own interests. This includes major initiatives like the India-EU trade deal, the “middle corridor” in the Caucasus, and the controversial “Board of Peace” for Gaza. Ultimately, the conference signaled a global acceptance that the old international order has collapsed, forcing a new focus on regional hegemony and self-sufficiency.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-eKsD-LMdk This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFRecent reports and statements from President Trump signal a weakening dollar. The U.S. dollar maintains its status as the world’s reserve currency, granting the U.S. the power of effective economic sanctions and the privilege of low borrowing costs. However, this position also demands balancing domestic stability with the global need for dollar liquidity, all while navigating the risks of a volatile exchange rate. Current 2026 policies favoring a weaker dollar aim to boost domestic manufacturing and narrow the trade deficit, but they risk eroding international confidence and inviting “de-dollarization” by adversaries and allies alike. Ultimately, a significant loss of reserve status would cripple Washington’s ability to fund massive deficits and signal an end to U.S. economic unilateralism in international security.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoOpLkBVyXIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgD2f_Pgckohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsKE3dm-cfs This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFThe New START Treaty—the last remaining nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia—is set to expire in four days. Give the state of U.S.-Russia tensions, China’s nuclear modernization, and ongoing threats from Iran’s nuclear development, the world will become a more dangerous place without New START. This won’t be due to explosive nuclear action but a quiet inaction on nuclear disarmament agreements.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzrkB-zfmdohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbI-_UZQEqshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZLynlQ0UiU This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFAt the World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland, the cracks of the rules-based international order ruptured. Here, the “middle power” states received a wake-up call, the U.S. was the biggest loser, and China may have passively become the biggest beneficiary of a souring relationship between America and its once closest allies. By rhetorically positioning itself as the stable economic investment and a defender of multilateralism without imperialist ambitions, Beijing may slowly be replacing the U.S. as the go-to nation for economic partnerships.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTvFnC-oFGwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvdA4V0bZBAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iHxJmYVyus Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFIn the past few weeks, Iran has been shaken up by the largest protest since the 1979 revolution. Mass killings of protestors by the Irainian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) has demonstrated that repression has continued to work due to organizational deficiences and exploitation of individual pain thresholds. But internal defections from security forces and strikes from the Bazaari class show that the regime is on borrowed time. Without extensive economic reform, the Ayatollah Khamenei cannot expect to repeatedly kill his way to maintaining power. However, it will take absolute and an enduring resolve from Iranian protestors and support from international power centers to bring about change for the first time in almost 50 years.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5F-_0Rc-q0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttTJauaO6nchttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/XQbOiiiAMl4 Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUF #8The world is at a critical juncture. Recent military operations in Venezuela, ambitions for the Trump administration to own Greenland, and Russia’s escalations in Ukraine suggest that international law is ineffective at constraining powerful states from using force against other countries. Some also argue that international law should not even be under consideration when determining actions of strategic importance. But while international law is admittedly ineffective at holding these states accountable, its value—even from a realist and self-interested standpoint—should not be discounted. As hypocritical or unfair as it seems, the world is better off when international law is frequently violated than one when it is purely at the mercy of strength, force, and power, whoever happens to wield it.Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah TanIntroduction videos:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=213s-MHCe3ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nWG0RKQ4awhttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/SdhZ9vKGNq0 Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

2025 in international securityMusic:Tomasz Redman Noah TanVideo clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g14ts0KYa98https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5HkGDAFaqMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln9uJndFkukhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbySxhAvHAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbySxhAvHAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igGYzVDKi2khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3LgG4ul7hwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n36dql7CFI Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

On December 8th, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he was allowing Nvidia to sell its second-best chip, the H200, to a select number of Chinese customers. Critics of the move say it compromises national security by giving Beijing access to more powerful computing abilities than it would otherwise be able to produce domestically. Others say that it undermines America’s strategic partnerships on export controls. And still others remark that it may not even be legal. Meanwhile, supporters note that the move helps to bring in much-needed revenue, maintain a dominant market share in the advanced chip industry, and stave off China’s aggressive push to decouple itself from the U.S. tech stack. Yet, there is something to be said about how important this move really is, especially considering that Beijing might not even accept the deal in the first place.Audio clips:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCxEGjRqsg (Bloomberg)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomFQABFCI0 (Bloomberg)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEdgjZ_nxo4 (Reuters)Music:Tomasz RedmanNoah Tan Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

Since November 2025, China and Japan have been locked in a diplomatic crisis over statements from Japan’s Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, which suggested that Japan may intervene on Taiwan’s behalf if China launched an attack. Japan’s justification for military intervention are difficult to defend based on the United Nations Charter, while many of China’s claims and retaliations run afoul in the same way. This dispute is unlikely to be settled on the basis of international law. Any reconciliation will require a concerted effort by both parties’ diplomats to lower the temperature and kick the can down the road on an issue that does not have an immediate answer. Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

In September 2025, AI company Anthropic detected attempted cyber-espionage by Chinese hackers who used Claude to carry out most of their attack campaign. Anthropic quickly disrupted the majority of attempts but signaled that the cybersecurity risks of agentic AI will only increase. Another important issue to note is that Anthropic’s report was not co-authored or linked to any external threat intelligence body. AI companies cannot be both risk analysts and policy advocates for their own products. The regulatory vacuum opens the door for private companies to preempt (and further fragment) AI standards and practices with their own prescriptions. Third-party verification mechanisms are irreplaceable in domains where safety can come into conflict with corporate advocacy. U.S. policymakers should place more importance and attention on self-regulatory organizations and federally funded research and development centers, and they should model AI safety evaluations after those of non-profit safety institutes in other industries. Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

On November 20th, U.S. officials presented Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with a 28-point peace plan to end the Russo-Ukrainian War, which has recently been characterized by a protracted war of attrition with overlapping zones of territorial control and slow Russian territorial gains in the Donbas region. The American 28-point peace plan offers a framework that largely legitimizes Russian territorial gains, restricts Ukraine’s military capacity and NATO prospects, and ties security guarantees to fragile sanctions conditions, which Ukraine rejects. Europe’s counter-proposal rejects forced territorial concessions and NATO restrictions, offers stronger security guarantees, and calls for frozen Russian assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction but lacks clear leverage to bring Russia to the table. Lasting peace will be contingent on Ukraine making territorial gains in the Donbas or the West intensifying sanctions enforcement to pressure Moscow. Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

BLUFThe U.S. has recently ramped up airstrikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela. With the arrival of the largest U.S. (and global) aircraft carrier in the Caribbean Sea, there is concern of escalation and even physical altercation between the U.S. and Venezuela. President Trump has broad authority to recognize the Venezuelan government as illegitimate, designate drug cartels as foreign terrorists, and carry out targeted sanctions. However, an insufficient connection between them and the Maduro regime suggests that the actions of the cartels cannot be attributed to the actions of the Venezuelan government. And claims that drug trafficking constitutes an “armed attack” are dubious and likely do not justify U.S. airstrikes on the Venezuelan vessels.How did we get here?How legal is it?Non-recognition of Maduro’s regimeThe ability of President Trump to reject the legitimacy of Maduro’s regime is deeply justified in historical and court precedent. The authority of the President to recognize foreign governments is rooted in the “Reception Clause” of Article II in the Constitution. While the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate this authority, it has, nonetheless, been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as an exclusive power of the President—Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) for all you con law nerds out there. On the international law front, de jure recognition of a foreign government is a political discretion and not a legal obligation, so there is pretty wide latitude there as well.Designation of Narco-terrorist status (and holding Venezuela responsible)In early 2025, the administration designated groups such as the Tren de Aragua (TdA) and Cartel de Los Soles (CdLS) as foreign terrorist organizations and narco-terrorist groups. Broadly, this action is justified through two statutes. The Foreign Terrorist Organizations designation clause under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of State to designate foreign organizations as terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the administration used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and thus impose sanctions on these groups. However, critics of this designation argue that designating a group as a “terrorist entity” requires more than criminal activity, including political motivation.Okay, so what about claims by the White House that these organizations are tied to the Venezuelan government? Under international law, a state can be held responsible for the action of a non-state entity in two ways. First, the ICJ established in United States v. Nicaragua (1984) that a state must have “effective control” over a non-state group, which involves the specific direction (not simply supply or tolerance) of the actions by the non-state entity, to warrant attribution. A lower standard established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) requires that a state have “overall control” of a non-state group, which only requires coordination or significant funding to warrant attribution. Intelligence assessments suggest that there is no evidence that Maduro’s regime meets either of these standards.U.S. intervention in Venezuela: sanctioning, CIA-ing, and sinkingNotwithstanding whether the actions of TdA and CdLS can be attributed to the Venezuelan government, let’s talk about the justifications and criticisms of U.S. actions towards and around Venezuela.Economic sanctions and CIA operationsUnder domestic law: The Trump administration launched broad economic sanctions under statutes like IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. Critics argue that these broad authorities are not absolute and come with major separation of powers concerns, as they encroach on Congress’s powers to regulate foreign commerce and provide oversight. However, whatever the merits of these critiques are, it goes without saying that multiple administrations from Carter to Obama have invoked this broad executive authority. As far as clandestine CIA operations go, the President can claim broad authority under the National Security Act of 1947 to approve covert actions.Under international law: Typically, intervention in the external affairs of a foreign state is impermissible without approval from the UN Security Council under Chapter VII authority. However, there are a few exceptions. Let’s explore:* Self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter after or in imminent danger of an armed attack. The bar for an armed attack in international law is quite high; the U.S. likely does not have a case here.* Consent of the target state. This is clearly not the case—the U.S. certainly does not have Maduro’s consent, and even if Trump received consent from Edmundo Gonzalez (which the U.S. recognizes as the legitimate president), he does not have authority under international law to request support, as he is not the de facto leader of Venezuela.* Humanitarian intervention: This is not a widely accepted exception, but it has nonetheless been invoked as a justification for intervention many times before. As far as economic sanctions on Venezuela go, Trump might have a case here. There is widespread evidence of human rights abuses from the Maduro regime. Targeted economic sanctions against Venezuela could be justified here. Notice how I said “economic sanctions” here and not airstrikes? We’ll get to that in a bit.Regarding CIA actions, there is a similar issue of violating the principle of sovereign equality and non-intervention in a state’s internal affairs under Article II of the UN Charter. Yet, covert actions have been used in multiple Presidential administrations as well.Airstrikes on Venezuelan vesselsThe justifications for these strikes: The Trump administration argues that the flow of drugs to the U.S. shores constitutes a direct national security threat against the American people; thus, these strikes are warranted as a defensive measure. What about the fact that these extrajudicial killings occurred in Venezuelan territory? Well, there is a justification about jurisdiction known as the “unwilling or unable” doctrine. Under this disputed area of customary international law, the Trump administration could justify carrying out operations outside its jurisdiction because Maduro created a friendly environment for these drug syndicates, thereby showing an unwillingness to address threats that originate on Venezuelan soil. Finally, the “Commander-in-Chief” clause in Article II of the Constitution gives the President latitude to direct military operations in domains that Congress has approved, such as counternarcotics and counterterrorism.So, what’s the issue?Why these strikes may be illegal: The validity of the “self-defense” claim by the Trump administration relies on a threshold known as “the gap,” or the difference in severity, scale, and consequences that separates an armed attack from less serious kinetic interventions. The U.S. can only strike these vessels in self-defense if Venezuela has met the bar for an armed attack in the gravity and effects of cocaine and marijuana coming to the U.S. I’ll leave this judgment up to you, but my intuition is that it doesn’t.The Trump administration has also claimed that the U.S. is in a state of armed conflict with these “narco-terrorists.” Okay, let’s assume for a sec that we are in a justifiable state of armed conflict with TdA and CdLS. The Trump administration still runs afoul of jus in bello principles, or the laws of armed conflict. First, these boat strikes would need to adhere to the principle of distinction, discriminating between combatant and noncombatant people aboard these vessels. The administration has not provided evidence that this determination was made. Okay, what about collateral damage? Civilians are killed all the time in armed conflict. Yes, this is true, but states must account for proportionality, which aims to balance military force with military advantage. In this case, you have lethal force, used against mostly small boats, all with a disputed threat level, and without clear regard for noncombatant immunity. Furthermore, if U.S. forces were able to track these vessels through ISR and could theoretically intercept the vessels by other means, it is not entirely clear that these strikes were militarily necessary.Invasion of Venezuela?Today, the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford reached the Caribbean Sea. What does this mean for the future? Well, if I knew how the future would unfold for everything in the world, my Substack would be a lot more popular, and I’d be a much wealthier man. But Trump has noted that, in addition to airstrikes, the U.S. would commit to “stop the drugs coming in by land.” And with the massive mobilization of troops by Maduro to defend against U.S. incursions, this escalatory environment is concerning to say the least. Like all history, hindsight is 20-20, and for now, we’ll just have to wait and see.*Update: As of around 10pm last night, President Trump said that the U.S. may be open to discussions with Maduro. Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org

Originally published as an article on November 9, 2025BLUFSome say we are in an AI bubble because the hype valuations outpace actual revenue and because the AI market is highly concentrated. However, government investment and institutional support, and existing applications of AI in the real economy may argue differently. Whether or not AI is a boom or bust will depend on the speed of AI innovation, adoption, and market corrections. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.roemedia.org