Bolen C (Page 73)

According to the latest Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Pony Ma, co-founder of Tencent Holdings, is once again China’s richest person, now with a net worth of more than A$ 65 billion ( US$ 44.3 billion ), placing him 27th globally.

Close behind him in the positions are bottled water billionaire Zhong Shanshan, and Zhang Yiming, the principal co-founder of technology giant ByteDance, which owns TikTok.

Only a few years back, the ruling Communist Party of China began a crackdown on businessmen and other business leaders. Some were officially jailed. Some just vanished from view of the general public.

Ma’s resumption might seem to indicate a more liberal industry environment. But as we watch China’s personal business grow, we should consider it follows China’s special handbook.

Ascent of Google

Ma’s success mainly comes from his interest in Tencent, which he co-founded in 1998 with its offices in Shenzhen. As China’s business grew, Tencent became a world-leading internet and technology business.

Tencent is well-known for connecting more than a billion people through its QQ and WeChat instant messaging services, which immediately rose to become two of China’s most widely used instant messaging services.

Tencent is also the largest video game vendor in China, with popular sports such as” Honour of Kings” and” League of Legends”.

Next month, Tencent released” Black Myth: Wukong”, China’s first-ever “AAA” video match. AAA is a nationally recognized gaming business buzzword that refers to key, high-budget, independent productions.

Within three days of its launch, the highly anticipated game had over 10 million profits across platforms, making it one of China’s most popular games ever.

The sport itself features several Chinese landscapes in addition to a 16th-century Chinese fiction called” Journey to the West.” Its reputation aligns with Beijing’s continued efforts to boost China’s global historical appeal.

The game was greatly praised by China’s state-owned media outlet, Xinhua, for “telling Chinese reports with world-class value” and for providing a new way for international players to understand Taiwanese culture.

This formal evaluation has a lot of meaning. In previous times, Tencent has had a hard time coping with Beijing’s strict game rules.

In August 2021, China’s movie game regulator announced plans to reduce online players under the age of 18 to only one minute of play on Sundays, weekends and holidays. This was a significant blow to China’s entertainment industry, including Tencent.

Beijing passed additional policy in December 2023 to increase the cap on the amount of cash and time that could be spent on video games. The announcement resulted in a 12.4 % drop in Tencent’s share price. However, the business also vowed to strictly follow any fresh rules.

A warning stories

In China, complying with state requirements is essential. Another Chinese tech businessman, Jack Ma, faced the effects of formally challenging them.

In 2020, Jack Ma was poised to launch what was set to be the world’s largest initial public offering ( IPO ), raising about A$ 50 billion ( US$ 34 billion ) for his financial technology giant, Ant Group.

However, regulators halted the Ant Group IPO after he harshly criticized Chinese economic regulators for antiquated regulations and excessive intervention after giving a speech in Shanghai.

China eventually suspended the Investor in late 2020 citing concerns that Ant Group’s e-finance items promoted uncontrolled loans and expense.

In the years that followed, Ant and its affiliates Alibaba were fined billions in charges for alleged financial regulations violations.

This stage ushered in a much greater Chinese governmental framework. The software tycoons had to adjust to a new reality.

In 2021, Pony Ma officially stressed the importance of strongly restricting internet firms, including his own. Additionally, he actively offered to meet with antitrust regulators.

Tencent’s fiscal firm was forced to be restructured, and the federal demanded a divestment of its stakes in various sectors.

Party remains the greatest power

China’s economy is a” socialist market economy“. That is, China’s state thinks of the industry as a useful tool to attain communist goals.

The government has long been cautious about the emerging market power of oligarchs as a potential threat to the party’s authorities, but that does n’t mean the private sector does n’t play a significant role.

Beijing has pledged to unleash market forces, promote private business growth, and modernize its financial institutions over the course of its previous decades of reform and entry. The state must keep the supreme authority to control and mobilize market resources as a prerequisite.

Nevertheless, its economy has been firmly weak post-Covid. The private sector’s crackdown has undermined many owners and entrepreneurs, which is essential to restoring China’s economic strength.

Last month, Beijing introduced a 31-point action strategy in reply, aiming to make the secret business “bigger, better and stronger”. Days after its launch, Pony Ma officially praised the president’s move as “encouraging and inspiring“.

Had spring presently been coming for China’s personal business? Maybe, but only on China’s words.

Remember that the state has always had a means of achieving its personal goals with market development. This will never be a tale of the condition reversing its grip on the market.

Wenting He is PhD candidate of foreign relations, Australian National University

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Mass demonstrations in Israel have begun to point fingers at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the hostages held by Hamas, a situation that has become increasingly perplexing after some turbulent days there.

Netanyahu continues to be unwavering in his opposition to reaching a deal with Hamas for the victims ‘ release despite growing domestic and international pressure.

Netanyahu is accused of deliberately trying to stifle any possible agreement by reports in Zionist and international media. But despite all that open outcry, Netanyahu’s grip on power appears to be as strong as always.

The shock wonder attack by Hamas on Israel almost a year ago severely weakened Netanyahu’s and his governing coalition‘s standing. The government’s insufficient response to the attack, the conflict’s length, and the ability to secure the release of all surviving hostages weakened public confidence in Netanyahu and his acquaintances. In fact, some people anticipated that the state would be destroyed within the first few days following the attack.

However, opposition parties have not been allowed to socially capitalize on the condition despite the opposition party’s generally low approval ratings of Netanyahu and his government.

Contrary to popular belief that the illiberal, spiritual, and ultra-nationalist objective supported by Netanyahu and his alliance has significantly weakened Israeli social cohesion and played a major part in Hamas ‘ decision to launch the attack, the government has since resumed its efforts to veer clear of it.

The causes now shaping Israel’s political environment are not just a fight between Netanyahu’s conventional partnership and a more liberal criticism, nor one between hawks and doves, or pro-war and anti-war constituencies.

As a professor of Israel’s traditions, history and politics, I believe it’s much more complicated.

]embedded material]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that while he is “willing to make a deal,” he wo n’t go down the same as Hamas and free the remaining 101 hostages.

Vilification of Palestinians

The majority of Israelis have a strong suspicion in Netanyahu and his government, and they also think that continuing the floor military procedure in the Gaza Strip, as Netanyahu advises, could endanger the lives of the hostages.

Therefore, most Israelis support a offer to transfer the captives, to be achieved by agreeing to a cease-fire or even a handover from Gaza.

But, it seems as though Israeli Jews share Netanyahu’s view that the ultimate goal of the war is to totally eradicate Hamas and not to have the victims, and that Israel is most likely to do this with the progression of the conflict.

In order to accomplish this, they think Israel may never abide by international law. A majority of Israeli military and other surveillance officials should be disciplined harshly rather than facing criminal charges, according to a majority of respondents.

Thus, it appears that Israeli Jews ‘ opposition to the continuation of the Gaza war and the rise of Jewish violence in the West Bank is not due to their concern for Israeli suffering. Instead, they object out of concern that it will threaten the life of the still-detained victims.

Shared view

The distinction between the ruling coalition and many of its critics is less about the view, strategy, tactics, or the ethics of the actions taken in Gaza, but more about an analysis of Netanyahu’s character and the achievement of his case in times of crisis.

Yair Lapid, leader of the opposition, spoke about Netanyahu quite harshly in a new interview:” The only thing he cares about is staying in strength. He’s been in power for very long. He’s focused solely on energy and not on doing good.

The majority of Israelis have lost their support due to the high human death toll from Hamas ‘ strike, the failure to achieve a swift, decisive victory, or even a sort of one.

If elections were held now, Netanyahu and his friends would be unable to type a state. However, there are slim chances of premature elections because the present coalition has little interest in holding fresh elections, and the majority of its members in congress prevent the opposition from imposing one. That implies that any attempt to hold an early election would require the backing of at least some alliance people.

The likelihood that they will be able to form the following federal compels the events in Netanyahu’s alliance to unite and radically advance their goals.

The partnership members insist that their needs should be taken into account then, despite the public protest, economic costs, or international stress, in addition to intensifying their efforts to maintain their foundation. By the time votes are ultimately held in October 2026, they appear to have succeeded in getting voters to turn up to supporting them.

Additionally, they see the conflict as an option. The ruling coalition has a pretext to implement illiberal measures that undermine basic liberties, including the right to free speech, protest, and occupation, as evidenced by the present state of emergency caused by the ongoing conflict.

This is especially true for non-Jewish citizens of the state. The ruling partnership can pass laws and operational measures that originally faced far greater people and lawful opposition because of the grave security concerns raised by the conflict and the fact that many of its critics actually share its worldview.

Hold on power is secure

It is no wonder, then, that the most radical elements in Netanyahu’s coalition, who explicitly promote racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide, have gained disproportionate influence over the government, coalition and the state as a whole.

Netanyahu and his government are unpopular, but their hold on power is secure. They enact policies that many Israeli Jews, though not Israeli Palestinians, support, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Internal tensions within Netanyahu’s coalition — such as those between the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalist factions — could potentially bring it down. However, each of those parties has a stake in its survival.

A general and unrestrained strike supported by the Histadrut, which represents the majority of Israel’s labor organizations, as well as by employers and the industrial and financial sector as a whole, a de facto or de jure military coup with the support of all Israeli military, security, and intelligence heads, or a military and financial embargo against Israel, is what I believe only an extraordinary event could accomplish.

Given the extraordinary nature of these events, they are very unlikely.

Shai P Ginsburg is associate professor and chair, Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

This trip, the four rulers of the Quad will once again organize, this day in US President Joe Biden’s home of Wilmington, Delaware. The conference will serve as a send-off for two of the officials; it will be one of Prime Minister Kishida Fumio’s final works, and Biden will step down as president after four months.

The Quad is an optimistic effort. As the four explained in the long first leaders ‘ communique, it exists to market” the free, available, rules-based order, rooted in international law and undaunted by force, to bolster security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond”.

It brings up a small cluster of self-described “like-minded” countries to enhance a shared set of goals for the world’s most populous area, and is referred to by policy experts as a “minilateral” to set it apart from the broad ranging multilateral regional organisations like ASEAN and APEC.

The Quad, which was first established in 2007, brought up the four companions to discuss shared stability concerns raised by China’s growing energy. Washington and Japan dominated the earliest edition, with Australia and New Delhi acting somewhat reluctantly as members.

In 2008, the gathering was largely abandoned by its users. They saw much advantage in such blatantly anti-China cooperation at a time when the PRC’s international policy remained careful.

In 2017, The Quad was resurrected. The four today share a dark analysis of Asia’s political circumstances. The four have gotten sucked into the Quad architecture because Xi Jinping’s China has an optimistic and assertive foreign policy that has unsettling the area and made the four abandon it.

The inaugural proper gathering took place on the day before the 2017 East Asia Summit. It therefore held a series of top leaders ‘ sessions in 2018 and at the international minister-level in 2019 on the outside of the UN General Assembly. In Tokyo in 2020, governmental meetings were held, and online at the beginning of 2021, in person.

The primary leaders ‘ stage meeting was held by Biden in 2021. The group that pledged to hold an annual gathering to maintain political speed for a grouping that the four today consider to be crucial to their goals in the area.

The Quad’s initial goal was to enhance shared military problems. However, it quickly departed from that safety focus and has since developed a large remit.

The clustering has established function programs relating to climate change, public wellbeing, vaccination, great technology, infrastructure, education exchange, maritime domain awareness, humanitarian and disaster relief and even space.

The Quad is all about managing a social reaction to China’s increase, though it is not specifically stated. The four are concerned about the growing defense benefits of Beijing, as well as the greater dangers this ambitious authoritarian regime poses for its regional operating system.

While military issues prompted the Quad’s creation, the former problems are now the target of debate. Curiously, financial issues are never part of the equations at present. Given the ways in which China uses geo-economics to expand its interests, this is a significant flaw.

The Quad has returned to the global level after more than a decade. With the accompanying media interest and a significantly expanded coverage submit, it has quickly moved through the gears to become a “leaders-led” gathering. In spite of impressive-sounding statements and a long list of job objectives, the grouping has certainly achieved a great deal in terms of concrete engagement.

As an practice in political signaling, it has been significant. And in foreign affairs, images matter, but just up to a point. Both the scope of the functional cooperation and its impact on the local corporate balance have been constrained.

Although gathering is undoubtedly a priority, the nations are still not particularly well-equipped to function as a musician. This is a result of administrative ability constraints as well as basic knowledge. Over time, and with funding, we may expect things to increase, but it is noteworthy that this has not been forthcoming to time.

The gathering needs to get started on true policy collaboration if the Quad members want their collaboration to “deliver practical benefits and function as a force for good,” according to a new ministerial statement.

The other main challenge is ensuring future positioning of the four nations ‘ interests. They all discuss concerns about China’s growing control, but keeping the team together is still a challenge.

This conflictes most acutely with Russia, where India’s method to Moscow contradicts the other three. Additionally, cooperating on that front is extremely challenging due to the two countries ‘ divergent economic techniques.

Expect a lot of gossip about the departing American and Asian officials as well as an even bigger set of ideas for the leaders ‘ meetings in Delaware.

There will be frequent horizontal recommendations to the China concern and incisive rhetoric. However, its ability to have an impact beyond optics will remain limited until the Quad really begins to act.

La Trobe University’s professor of humanities and social sciences, Nick Bisley, is the university’s professor of international relationships.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

The visit by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to South Korea&nbsp, earlier this month&nbsp, created a dozen vibrations. No significant presentations were made, and the two officials vowed to keep working to improve relations.

In South Korea, the opposition Democratic Party&nbsp, issued&nbsp, a somewhat tradition criticism of the Yoon Suk-yeol state for “undermining national attention with a subordinate politics toward Japan”.

Why, therefore, did this visit taking place? Following his decision to not run for re-election as president of the ruling conservative Liberal Democratic Party ( LDP ), the majority of analysts pointed to Kishida’s desire to cement his legacy. The choice of Kashida to move down led to an unprecedentedly competitive election to elect a new party leader who may serve as prime minister. &nbsp,

Nine candidates&nbsp, are competing for the ballot on September 27, which includes a first round of seats among registered party members, followed by a runoff between the bottom two finishers—only LDP people in the parliamentary National Diet join, along with one vote from each of the 47 provincial pages.

There is another reason for the Seoul mountain if you examine the contentious debate carefully. Kishida may become really concerned about the viability of his diplomatic efforts in Korea and Japan.

The presence of South Korea

LDP politics have always been focused on domestic problems, from the corruption issue and reform to economic policy in general. In the candidates ‘ policy websites and primary conversations, foreign and security procedures have been at most supplementary topics.

Yet acknowledging the importance of Kishida’s efforts to improve diplomatic relations, it is noteworthy that there is no mention of South Korea or the importance of diplomatic relationships in any president’s platform.

Unfortunately, perhaps, only North Korea comes up in individuals ‘ statements, with mandatory pledges to try to resolve the issue of Chinese abductees by the North Korean government.

Shinjiro Koizumi, one of the candidates in the election and the son of the former prime minister who visited North Korea in the early 2000s, &nbsp, declared&nbsp, his readiness to hold a summit with Kim Jong Un without any preconditions.

The lack of attention to South Korea may not necessarily indicate a cooling of relations following the change in leadership. Former US national security official Michael Green argued earlier this spring, in a&nbsp, JoongAng Ilbo&nbsp, column&nbsp, anticipating Kishida’s departure, that the momentum in improved relations would likely persist despite political change, not only in Japan but even in Korea.

He cited a consensus among Japanese strategists that a relationship was necessary for Japan’s own national security. Green thinks that the most likely successors had” no reason to stop the progress being made with Korea.”

Certainly, some of the candidates are wedded to a&nbsp, continuation&nbsp, of Kishida’s foreign and security policies. Candidates with the most experience in foreign policy are candidates with the most acclaim: former foreign minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, former foreign minister Taro Kono, and LDP Secretary General Toshimitsu Motegi.

If current Japanese polling is to be believed, however, none of these candidates are likely to make the runoff. &nbsp, Polls&nbsp, show the three most likely candidates, along with a fourth who is a longer shot.

The three candidates are Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi, the party’s most acrimonious right-wing figure, and Shigeru Ishiba, the youngest and least experienced candidate. The dark horse, also hailing from the Abe faction, is former Economic Security Minister Takayuki Kobayashi.

The dangers ahead

Koizumi and Takaichi are two choices that have the most likely negative effects on Korean-Japan relations. Both men regularly make visits to the contentious Yasukuni Shrine, which regularly elicits official protests and ire from Koreans.

Koizumi has indicated that he will continue this policy as prime minister, following in his father’s footsteps. Takaichi, who visited the shrine on August 15 as a cabinet minister, has also clearly stated her intention to visit as Japan’s leader.

Koizumi’s foreign policy is somewhat akin to a gimmick. His&nbsp, platform&nbsp, contains broad and vague statements on the importance of” strong diplomacy”, moving ahead on defense spending, strengthening the US-Japan alliance and security coordination with “like-minded countries like Australia”, and support for a “free and open Indo-Pacific”.

Koizumi again calls for summit-level discussion with China and North Korea, without making any mention of South Korea. Koizumi is regarded as an internationalist because he has studied in the United States and briefly collaborated with Mike Green at the Washington, DC Center for Strategic and International Studies. But other than a brief stint as environment minister, he has no government experience.

In contrast, the views of Takaichi, who would be Japan’s first female leader if elected, are better known. She is a member of Nippon Kaigi, a well-known group of conservatives who hold firmly revisionist views on issues relating to wartime history.

She has raised questions about the accuracy of Kono’s statement regarding comfort women, which acknowledges the Imperial Japanese Army’s role in forcing Korean and other women into sexual servitude during the war. At the time of President Yoon’s election, she opposed Kishida ‘s&nbsp, attendance&nbsp, at his inauguration.

Takaichi has recently been more cautious and has backed efforts to improve relations. ” We have built an extremely good relationship”, Takaichi&nbsp, said&nbsp, when announcing her candidacy on September 9.

” Prime Minister Kishida has put in a lot of effort. Japan, the United States, and South Korea should strengthen their security ties given that the world’s security environment is regarded as the worst in the world.

However, Takaichi, in a somewhat subtlely critical comment, added,” In recent years, Japanese music has been able to be broadcast freely in Korea. I’m pleased that Koreans are singing songs from the era of Showa. We will expand our cooperation in the areas where it is possible.

Ishiba, who has a reputation as a defense hawk and is also the most receptive to taking positions opposed to those of former prime minister Abe, would be the most advantageous choice for Korea-Japan relations.

Some view him as a nationalist in the De Gaulle style who is more interested in engaging with Asia and willing to take positions outside of the United States. In this campaign, he has &nbsp, called&nbsp, for the creation of an Asian collective security organization and stressed the need to improve ties with China.

Regarding South Korea, Ishiba has been much more open about acknowledging Japan’s colonial error and backing up closer ties. ” It is of utmost importance now for Japan to build a solid relationship of trust with South Korea”, he said in a&nbsp, December 2023 interview.

Ishiba disproves traditionalist beliefs by claiming that the Korean annexation of 1910 was unlawful. ” There’s no need to flatter Korea or to lay out the logic of the past, but we should admit that what was a mistake was a mistake”, he said. ” We must redouble our emphasis on the importance of Japan and South Korea understanding one another and working together,” he said.

At this point, the future of Korea-Japan relations is uncertain. There are strong allies who support continuity, but there is a real chance of a step backward, if not a dysfunctional one. The leadership election in Japan has now grown to be a more significant and significant source of uncertainty.

The election of a candidate like Takaichi will likely stifle South Korea’s efforts to reconcile with Japan’s wartime and colonial history issues and feed those who oppose his conciliatory policy toward Japan.

Daniel Sneider is a non-resident distinguished fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America and a lecturer for international policy and East Asian studies at Stanford University. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Republished with KEI’s permission, which is a public company established by the Republic of Korea’s government as an agent for the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy ( FARA ). Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Read the original here.

Continue Reading

Israel allegedly orchestrated a destructive strike on Hezbollah through a covert use of the organization’s communication systems as lethal weapons in a strong display of technological warfare.

Many internet retailers reported that continuous blasts of Hezbollah’s communication tools rocked Lebanon, killing 12 people, including two babies, and injuring almost 3, 000.

The products were allegedly tampered with, and the batteries ‘ small quantities of explosives were found next to them, and were triggered by a somewhat sent information. Certain studies claimed the products were made by Taiwan’s Gold Apollo, which the corporation denied, saying it gave a Hungary-based firm a permit to render them under its brand.

Various studies suggested, with apparent picture proof, that they were made by Japan’s Icom. The business, yet, claimed the unit had been in decline for ten years and promised to launch an investigation into the allegations.

Hezbollah has blamed Israel, which has remained motionless, as has been common in similar situations. In fact, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that Jewish intelligence participated in the production of the products. The strike comes amid heightened tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, following cross-border battles that began after Hamas’s October 7 harm.

Hezbollah, known for using pagers to prevent security, appears to have suffered a major violation in its communication system. According to reports, the adviser of Iran to Lebanon suffered an vision loss in the accident.

Vowing retribution, Hezbollah launched jet attacks on Israeli opportunities soon after the storms. The UN Security Council is scheduled to meet on the event in light of this most recent development, which is furthering the region’s instability.

Compromising attack supply stores is not a recent technique. For instance, during the Vietnam War, the US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group ( MACV-SOG ) seeded Communist supply lines with small arms rounds and mortar shells packed with explosives instead of propellants.

When fired, this rose ammunition would explode, destroying the weapon and potentially severely injuring the shooter. In the case of more prominent weapons, such as cement shells, the blast could kill the entire weapon crew.

Similar to the Arab government’s ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has planted spiked ammunition along black market ammunition supply lines, which had similarly devastating effects for opposition forces.

Such a strategy is hardly limited to low-tech weapons. The Chinese government planted little microchips into Supermicro-made US servers in China’s supplier factories in 2018 with microchips.

The chips serve as a loophole for China to remove classified information from these servers, which are used by US intelligence and military installations. &nbsp,

Israel’s most new assault may be seen as an evolution of the tactic, which uses real sabotage by putting explosives inside adversary electronics while simultaneously detonating these spiked devices.

Israel could also monitor the communications prospects of injured Hezbollah staff in the wake of the attack and gain insight into their movements and locations.

At the strategic level, Israel’s high-tech assault on Hezbollah sends a message that it can reach at any place and time of its finding. The attack may serve as a pretext for Hezbollah to refrain from full-fledged warfare with Israel in order to put pressure on Hamas in Gaza and compel Israel to start a two-front conflict. It also shows how deeply Israel has penetrated Hezbollah’s offer stores. &nbsp,

The attacks go against Israel’s recommended strategy of unconventional targeted killings, which is also true. These activities range from reportedly assassinating Hamas head Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran using planted bombs and remotely controlled device guns to thwart Iran’s leading nuclear experts in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.

Israel’s innovative harm, however, was intended to target both the Hezbollah management and its rank-and-file members, with the use of weaponizing pagers, which the organization frequently employs in an apparent bid to concentrate the attack on particular personnel.

Israel may be letting Hezbollah know that even its rank-and-file members are out of their healthy enclaves in Lebanon.

At the administrative level, this assault perhaps force Hezbollah to reassess its communications infrastructure. In the first place, Hezbollah opted for low-tech means of communication, generally pagers, to avoid using cellphones, which were deemed vulnerable to Jewish hacking and intrusion.

Israel’s innovative strike may push Hezbollah to consider other methods of communication, which could make running the organization much less effective. Additionally, it might prompt Hezbollah to examine its supply lines closely, particularly its pipelines for advanced technology for drones and missiles.

At a time when it may be gearing up for a full-scale conflict with Israel, the harm may have killed a sizable amount of Hezbollah employees tactically, caused major deaths, and sapped a sizable percentage of its workforce.

Israel’s strike will probably make it imperative for Hezbollah to implement an alternative contacts system, ranging from Intranet to underwater wire infrastructure.

The primary caveat is that even the most envious of tactics and the most powerful military technologies cannot destroy an adversary driven by philosophy, especially if they fight as a fragmented insurgency, despite all of Israel’s technical advantages over Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.

While Israel may have struck a severe blow against Hezbollah this time, the latter is just a proxy in the more significant Israel-Iran conflict, part of Iran’s much more extensive” Axis of Resistance”, encompassing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Syrian government, Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen, among others.

Further, Israel’s attack shows the possibility that any electronic device on a network has the potential to be weaponized, opening a new realm in warfare.

This raises the possibility that these harmed devices might end up in the hands of civilians, making it more important for militaries to secure their supply chains, a challenging task in an interdependent, globalized world.

Continue Reading