This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.

Are the new dynamics of power assertion, the redistribution of influence, and the emergence of new technologies changing both the place of war in the everyday life of our societies and the way war is waged when it occurs? Does the obsession with conflict, combined with technical efficiency, impose upon us a state of permanent latent war? And when weapons speak, does the involvement of modern technologies and the companies that produce them revolutionize both the political decision-making process and the way people are engaged in war? These are fundamental questions raised by the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and they are already shaping current thinking on military strategy and organization.

From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.

Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.

Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.

Twenty-five years ago, the September 11 attacks prompted the invention of new security architectures that shaped the war on terrorism. Sixteen think tank experts from fifteen countries reflect on the successes, failures, and missed opportunities in the fight against terrorism—a fight that is still ongoing.

The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.

The 2026 Hormuz crisis has strengthened rather than weakened the rationale for Japan’s decarbonization strategy, contrary to what might have been expected. Rather than energy policy supplanting climate policy, the two should actually be viewed as inseparable.