GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS

Sharper analysis. Smarter decisions. Geopolitical Intelligence Analysis is Insight Forward’s resource for professionals refining the art and science of strategic analysis. This section explores best practices, tradecraft, and the common challenges faced by analysts working at the intersection of geopolitics, risk, and decision support.

In security, whether in geopolitics, corporate risk management, or executive protection, there is an instinctive tendency to think spatially—fortifying perimeters, controlling access, and creating physical barriers to threats. While spatial defense is very important, history and experience suggest that the most effective security strategy is one that prioritizes time over space. That is, the best defenses are those that anticipate, disrupt, or neutralize threats before they materialize. This is the essence of defending in time rather than in space: using intelligence, analysis, and proactive measures to prevent crises before they occur, rather than reacting to them once they are in motion.

The Geopolitical Imperative: Anticipation Over Reaction

In geopolitics, nations that defend in time rather than in space are those that use intelligence, foresight, and strategic maneuvering to prevent threats from escalating into full-blown conflicts. The Cold War provides multiple examples of this principle in action. The United States and the Soviet Union did not rely solely on geographic defenses such as missile shields or border fortifications; they engaged in intelligence collection, covert operations, and strategic diplomacy to shape events before they reached the point of war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 provides a stark example of the consequences of failing to defend in time. Historian and intelligence analyst Roberta Wohlstetter, in her seminal work Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, examined how the U.S. had access to vast amounts of intelligence indicating a potential Japanese attack. However, this intelligence was lost in a sea of noise—competing signals, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and preconceived notions about where and when an attack might occur. Wohlstetter highlighted the importance of distinguishing critical warnings from background chatter, an insight that remains fundamental to intelligence work today. Had U.S. military and political leaders been able to filter and act on the right intelligence in time, defensive measures might have been implemented before the attack, potentially altering the course of history.

A more recent example is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion in 2022 was preceded by years of intelligence warnings and military movements that were, to some extent, overlooked or underacted upon by Western nations. While military aid and sanctions have since been deployed to support Ukraine, these measures are largely reactive. If Western nations had more aggressively countered Russian hybrid warfare, disinformation campaigns, and economic leverage before the invasion, they might have disrupted the conditions that led to full-scale war.

The Business of Intelligence: Defending Corporate Interests Before Crisis Strikes

In the corporate world, defending in time rather than in space is equally critical. Businesses that operate in high-risk environments must rely on risk intelligence, competitor analysis, and crisis simulations to preemptively neutralize threats to operations, supply chains, and personnel.

Consider the case of multinational corporations navigating the risks of political instability. Companies operating in volatile regions, such as the Sahel in Africa, need to anticipate insurgencies, coup risks, and regulatory changes well before they impact business continuity. Those that rely solely on physical security measures—such as fortifying offices or hiring private security—may find themselves trapped by events beyond their control. In contrast, firms that engage in proactive intelligence gathering—monitoring political shifts, tracking insurgent financing, and building relationships with local power brokers—can mitigate risks before they escalate into crises.

Cybersecurity is another area where defending in time is more effective than defending in space. Traditional security models focus on firewalls, access controls, and data encryption (spatial defenses). However, the most successful cybersecurity strategies prioritize proactive threat intelligence—tracking hacker groups, monitoring the dark web for stolen credentials, and employing behavioral analytics to detect intrusions before they occur. By anticipating cyber threats in time, rather than merely reinforcing digital perimeters, organizations can prevent devastating breaches.

Executive Protection: The Critical Role of Countersurveillance

The concept of defending in time rather than space is perhaps most vividly illustrated in executive protection, where threats to high-profile individuals often materialize long before an attack occurs. Traditional executive security often relies on physical measures—bodyguards, armored vehicles, secure compounds. While these are necessary, they are insufficient without the intelligence-driven element of threat anticipation and countersurveillance.

Countersurveillance is a prime example of defending in time. High-net-worth individuals, corporate executives, and political figures are often targeted by adversaries who conduct pre-attack surveillance before attempting an attack or abduction. If security teams focus only on immediate physical defenses, they may be unaware of a threat until it is too late. However, by employing countersurveillance—detecting hostile reconnaissance, analyzing patterns of suspicious activity, and deploying decoys—protective teams can identify and neutralize threats long before an attack is attempted.

A notable example of how countersurveillance could credibly have prevented an assassination is the case of Brian Thompson. Thompson was targeted by a radicalized individual who used basic OSINT to determine his location and schedule. Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin, exhibited unusual behaviors precipitating the assassination, including loitering at an unusual time and in unusual clothing for the area.

Had an effective countersurveillance program been in place, security professionals might have detected signs of hostile surveillance. By identifying red flags early, security teams could likely have taken preventive measures, such as adjusting Thompson’s schedule, deploying decoys, or engaging law enforcement to intervene before an attack could occur. This proactive approach might have neutralized the threat before it reached a critical stage, reinforcing the value of defending in time rather than in space.

Implementing a Time-Based Defense Strategy

Defending in time rather than in space requires a shift in mindset. Whether in geopolitics, corporate security, or executive protection, organizations must invest in intelligence capabilities that emphasize anticipation over reaction. Implementing such a strategy involves:

Investing in Intelligence and Early Warning Systems – Organizations must develop the capability to gather, analyze, and act on intelligence that identifies emerging threats well before they materialize.
Enhancing Countersurveillance and Threat Detection – Protective security should emphasize countersurveillance, anomaly detection, and behavioral analysis to disrupt pre-attack reconnaissance and operational planning.
Scenario Planning and Wargaming – Organizations should regularly conduct exercises that simulate emerging threats, testing their ability to detect and mitigate crises in their early stages rather than relying on reactive responses.
Building Strategic Alliances and Information Sharing Networks – No organization or nation can detect every threat alone. Collaborating with other private sector intelligence partners, industry peers, vendors, and even government agencies can enhance early warning capabilities and improves collective security.

Winning Before the Battle

The most effective security strategies are those that win battles before they are fought. In an era of increasing geopolitical tension, corporate risk, and executive threats, defending in time rather than space is a necessity. The ability to detect and neutralize threats before they become active crises is the ultimate form of security. It allows organizations, governments, and individuals to shape events rather than be shaped by them, ensuring that risks are mitigated long before they materialize into emergencies. By prioritizing intelligence, foresight, and proactive intervention, defenders can ensure that they are not just responding to threats but preventing them from ever occurring.

President Trump’s recent flurry of executive orders has upended the traditional policy-making process, bypassing the usual interagency coordination, congressional oversight, and diplomatic engagement that have historically shaped U.S. foreign policy. Normally, major policy shifts involve extensive consultation within the National Security Council, State Department, Department of Defense, and relevant agencies, along with input from key congressional committees. However, Trump’s approach has relied on swift, unilateral actions, often catching U.S. government institutions, allies, and even his own administration off guard.

This unorthodox strategy has led to significant disruptions in U.S. diplomatic and security commitments, particularly with executive orders that abruptly freeze foreign aid, limit engagement with international organizations, and redefine alliances based on transactional considerations. By circumventing legislative and institutional processes, these policies lack traditional checks and balances, making them highly volatile and subject to rapid change depending on political priorities. This shift represents a departure from conventional foreign policy-making, where continuity, institutional expertise, and alliance management play central roles. Instead, Trump's reliance on executive orders has created a fluid and unpredictable approach, where major policy changes can be enacted and reversed with little warning, heightening global uncertainty about U.S. commitments and direction.

This creates difficulties for strategic intelligence and geopolitical risk analysts. How can they do their jobs effectively in this seemingly unpredictable new environment? However, the nature of intelligence collection and analysis does not change even with differing circumstances, and if analysts remember this, they can still offer effective forecasting.

Signals Intelligence

Take for example the history of signals intelligence. Now the purview of major technological organizations like the National Security Agency (NSA) or Government Communications Headquarters, the interception of encrypted messages to gain advantage in geopolitical competition goes back to the Romans. Yet the most apropos comparison would be from Renaissance Venice. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Venetian Republic was a pioneer in state surveillance, intelligence gathering, and cryptography. As a dominant mercantile power, Venice relied heavily on the control of information to maintain its political and economic influence. One of its most sophisticated methods of intelligence gathering was the systematic interception and examination of correspondence, a practice that foreshadowed modern intelligence agencies like the NSA.

Venice’s government, particularly the powerful Council of Ten, oversaw an elaborate espionage network that included intercepting, reading, and deciphering both domestic and foreign mail. The state maintained a highly organized postal system, giving it significant control over the movement of information. Any letters coming in or out of Venice, particularly those belonging to diplomats, merchants, and foreign envoys, were subject to scrutiny. To carry out this operation, Venice operated an early version of what would later be called a cabinet noir (black chamber), a secret office where officials would open and examine private letters before resealing and forwarding them. Skilled scribes meticulously copied intercepted messages, ensuring that neither the sender nor the recipient knew their communication had been compromised.

Venice was also one of the first states to develop an institutionalized cryptographic office, sometimes referred to as the Ufficio degli Avvisi. This bureau specialized in breaking ciphers used by rival states, criminal networks, and enemies of the Republic. As the use of coded messages became more common in diplomatic and military affairs, the Venetians trained expert cryptographers to decipher intercepted messages, effectively making them one of the earliest states to integrate codebreaking as a systematic government function.

The Venetians’ commitment to surveillance and codebreaking bears striking similarities to the modern-day NSA. Just as Venice controlled the postal system to monitor and analyze information, today’s intelligence agencies leverage digital communications infrastructure to conduct surveillance on emails, phone calls, and internet traffic. The NSA, like the Venetian cryptographic bureau, operates a vast and sophisticated codebreaking apparatus, focusing on decrypting foreign intelligence and securing domestic communications. This comparison shows that essentially intelligence stayed the same across centuries, but all that changed was the technology used to so.

Intelligence Cycle

Another example would be the intelligence cycle. The Intelligence Cycle is the quintessential process by which the intelligence profession operates. It was initially designed for government and military use, has expanded its scope to encompass various sectors such as corporate security and global politics. Critics often argue that the intelligence analysis process oversimplifies and inaccurately portrays reality. Questions frequently raised include the adequacy of its steps, who truly controls the process, and whether it operates strictly in one direction or allows for bidirectional flow.

The Intelligence Cycle

Security expert Fred Burton, the Executive director of Protective Intelligence at Ontic, has noted, “The idea of the Intelligence Cycle is generic, but it works if you follow it. If you lay a technology stack on top of it, the Cycle becomes quicker and more dynamic.” Furthermore, “[t]he beauty of the Intelligence Cycle is that it’s very tactical but can also be very strategic to help keep you on track. And it’s constant — the wheel is always in motion.” That quote exemplifies the continued importance of the intelligence cycle. It is a simplified model that helps analysts and security professionals conceive of how intelligence can be done. Besides offering that guiding model, what the intelligence cycle really does is provide a framework for how intelligence programs should be set up to be most effective. Let’s go to the steps of the intelligence cycle and see what should be developed from each of them.

Planning and Direction: This is the step for creating intelligence requirements, which should be significantly detailed to help analysts and consumers. Intelligence requirements should include: Key Topics, Essential Elements of Information, Key Intelligence Questions, and Key Words.
Collection: Related to intelligence requirements, this step of the cycle is where analysts should set up their collection plans. If it’s OSINT, what sources will be used? What terms will be followed? Will the focus be social media? What role does HUMINT or SIGINT play in this as well?
Processing and Exploitation: Data is often messy and unorganized, and this step helps analysts take the deluge of information from OSINT and categorize appropriately in preparation for the next step. This also cannot happen impromptu. Programs need a plan for how to organize the data.
Analysis and Production: This is the most important step, but there is a lot that goes into the backend of setting this up for a program. Simply being knowledge on a subject does not mean the analysts are actually capable. Programs should use this step to focus on creating repeatable analytic capabilities (e.g., critical thinking as a hard skill).
Dissemination: Programs need to be prepared to have formats for their reports (black and white Word documents are insufficient). There needs to be standardization of typeface, how to use pictures, etc. This is also the step that reminds analysts to put together appropriate dissemination lists and making sure the right person gets the intelligence.
Feedback: Sometimes forgot, this step should remind programs to develop and keep relationships at the center of the cycle. Intelligence is not produced as an act of intellectual pontification. It is to serve the needs and interests of your clients and personnel, and programs should have feedback and relationship building included in their structure and procedures.

These same steps can be used when trying to forecast in the unorthodox style of President Trump, and businesses will need analysts to maintain the appropriate intelligence approach to accurately assess geopolitical situations. What will change, just like in the example with the Venetians and NSA, will be the focus of the data gathering and how to analyze the information. For example, analysts are likely going to need to follow Trump’s social media extremely closely, have deep profiles on key decision makers to understand their ideological and personal idiosyncrasies, and focus more on understanding the transactional nature of the administration. These will be new areas of data for analysts, but the essential nature of analysis has not changed.

If your organization is interested in training for analysts on how to do this, please reach out to Insight Forward, which offers advanced intelligence analysis and critical thinking training.

Trump’s Foreign Policy and Corporate Decision Making

How it will impact Corporate Decision Making

President Donald Trump's foreign policy marks a departure from the neoliberal focus on democracy promotion, globalization, and economic interdependence that has defined U.S. strategy since the Cold War. Instead, it signals a return to a 19th-century realist framework, prioritizing nationalism, unilateralism, and narrowly defined national interests. This approach emphasizes leveraging U.S. power to extract bilateral advantages rather than fostering multilateral cooperation, often sidelining values like democracy and human rights in favor of pragmatic deals. Industrial policy, including the use of tariffs and protectionist measures, underscores this shift, reflecting a desire to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. By embracing an essentially transactional worldview, Trump positions the United States as a self-interested actor in an increasingly fragmented global order, where power politics and economic self-sufficiency take precedence over the liberal ideals of interconnectedness and shared global governance.

Like many realists before him, Trump’s transactional and opportunistic leadership style prioritizes self-interest and perceives international relations as zero-sum games, meaning there are winners and losers in each scenario rather than shared benefits. Trump's approach will likely disrupt alliances, values, and treaties, pushing the U.S. further into a transactional global order. While allies like Europe and NATO recalibrate their strategies to accommodate Trump’s demands, emerging markets will likely see opportunities in his preference for bilateral deals and reduced emphasis on shared values like democracy and human rights. This is due to the growing global disillusionment with the post-WWII rules-based order that many in the Global South see as hypocritical at best. Smaller nations, however, could face significant challenges in a transactional system. Thos without important economic leverage, such as critical minerals, will find it difficult to manage the great power competition based on national interests.

A prime example of this is Trump’s views on U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The United States has failed to build strong partnerships with its neighbors, leaving fewer places where Washington’s influence is unchallenged. This approach departs from decades of U.S. passivity, during which the region was neglected due to diversions in the Middle East and South Asia. Trump's early appointments and strategic pronouncements, such as his interest in Greenland, the Panama Canal, and U.S.-Mexico border security, signal a renewed emphasis on countering growing threats from adversaries like China, Russia, and transnational cartels.

China's expanding influence in Latin America, through trade, Belt and Road Initiative participation, and strategic investments, poses significant economic and security challenges, as do Russian military activities, Iranian proxies, and the flow of Chinese fentanyl across the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump's strategy seeks to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere by addressing these threats, reviving historical policies of hemispheric defense, and emphasizing secure regional economic integration in response to great-power competition. While a deviation from American foreign policy principles of the last several decades, his transactional approach is likely to be more welcomed in the Western Hemisphere.

Importantly, Trump’s foreign policy approach could offer several potential benefits that corporations will want to understand. These include:

Enhanced Domestic Economic Growth: Prioritizing industrial policy and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains could stimulate domestic manufacturing, protect key industries, and create jobs in sectors critical to national security, such as technology, defense, and energy. However, this also has the potential to increase production and manufacturing costs. Corporations will have to monitor the specifics of the policy choices closely.
Strategic Leverage in Negotiations: By emphasizing bilateral deals, Trump’s approach could the U.S. to tailor agreements to its specific interests, potentially securing better terms in trade or investment agreements with individual countries.
Focus on Practical Interests: Moving away from abstract commitments to democracy promotion and human rights can lead to more pragmatic, interest-driven foreign policy decisions, focusing resources on areas of direct economic value to the U.S.
Appeal to Emerging Markets: In some cases, Trump’s transactional style may resonate with countries in the Global South that prefer pragmatic partnerships over being subjected to Western norms or conditions tied to democracy or human rights. This could increase market access for American companies.
Greater Policy Flexibility: Eschewing rigid neoliberal doctrines grants the U.S. more room to adapt to a multipolar world, where rising powers like China and India increasingly challenge the traditional liberal order. Competition with great powers also means economic competition between companies. Places like Central Africa have rejected Western companies for their lack of pragmatism, which was typically hamstrung by U.S. policies.

Corporations must adapt to the resurgence of this transactional 19th-century-style foreign policy and diplomacy, where nationalism, unilateralism, and realpolitik dominate global interactions. In this environment, states prioritize national interests over multilateral agreements, and the rules-based order gives way to a transactional, power-driven approach. As a result, corporations can no longer rely solely on stable global frameworks or predictable trade agreements to guide their operations. Instead, they must recognize themselves as geopolitical actors, navigating complex relationships with governments, managing risks from protectionist policies, and aligning with national industrial strategies. This shift requires companies to actively engage in shaping policy, understanding regional power dynamics, and strategically positioning themselves to mitigate risks while capitalizing on opportunities in a fragmented global landscape. Success in the second Trump administration will hinge on a corporation's ability to anticipate geopolitical shifts, influence policy decisions, and function as agile participants in a competitive, multipolar world.

Introduction

Corporations as Political Actors
Historically, corporations were often viewed as neutral economic players focused solely on profit and shareholder value. However, today they wield considerable influence on both domestic and international politics. Their operations, investments, and partnerships can shift political balances, impact economic stability, and even alter diplomatic relations. For modern corporations, geopolitical risks are not just operational concerns—they are strategic priorities. And as the leader, the CEO's role is critical in steering the organization through these complexities.

Lessons from the East India Company
The historical example of the East India Company (EIC) offers valuable lessons for today’s CEOs. Founded in 1600, the EIC began as a commercial enterprise focused on trade but soon transitioned into a powerful political entity. It governed territories, maintained armies, and negotiated treaties, becoming a state-like actor in global politics.

While today’s corporations operate in a more regulated and globally responsible environment, they still face similar geopolitical pressures. The EIC’s ability to adapt, engage diplomatically, and navigate volatile political landscapes holds relevant lessons for contemporary CEOs leading their organizations.

The Modern Corporation in a Geopolitical World
Much like the EIC, today’s corporations must address several geopolitical challenges:

Diplomatic Engagement: CEOs must guide their organizations in building relationships with governments, regulators, and stakeholders across borders.
Regulatory Compliance: Navigating international regulations, sanctions, and export controls is essential for avoiding legal and reputational risks.
Security: Both physical security in unstable regions and cybersecurity are critical to protecting assets and operations.
Supply Chain Management: Geopolitical events, such as trade wars or regional conflicts, can disrupt global supply chains.

Companies operating in sectors like technology, energy, and agriculture often find themselves deeply involved in regional political dynamics. For instance, tech companies must comply with China's strict data privacy laws, while energy corporations manage relationships with governments in resource-rich but politically unstable regions. CEOs must lead the charge in navigating these challenges.

The Relationship Between Corporations and States
In today’s geopolitical environment, the line between state and corporate interests is increasingly blurred. Governments recognize the economic and political influence of corporations, and corporations are often required to align with national policies. For example:

U.S. technology firms must comply with national security laws.
Energy companies lobby for trade agreements that protect their operations.
Global supply chains are frequently subject to political pressures and sanctions.

This entanglement means CEOs must understand not just their business environments but also the broader geopolitical forces shaping them.

Strategic Foresight for CEOs
To adopt a geopolitical mindset and successfully lead geopolitical-ready organizations, CEOs must prioritize:

Geopolitical Awareness: Understand regional and global political trends.
Scenario Planning: Develop contingency plans for geopolitical disruptions.
Cross-Functional Collaboration: Work closely with legal, security, and risk management teams.
Ethical Governance: Balance strategic goals with social responsibility and regulatory compliance.

Corporations that adopt these strategies will be better equipped to turn geopolitical challenges into opportunities.

Conclusion
In the 21st century, multinational corporations are not just market participants—they are geopolitical actors. Whether influencing trade agreements, managing security risks, or aligning with national policies, their role in shaping global events is undeniable. For CEOs, understanding and responding to geopolitical risks is no longer optional; it is a strategic imperative. As the leader of a geopolitical actor, your ability to anticipate and address global risks will define your organization's success in an uncertain world.

Geopolitics, Wargaming, and FICINT:

Tools for Strategic Scenario Development

Navigating the complexities of geopolitics can feel like solving a puzzle with too many moving pieces. The abundance of variables influencing events makes forecasting a challenging but essential task for geopolitical analysts. Tools like wargames and fictional intelligence (FICINT) offer innovative methods to visualize scenarios and explore the potential consequences of different decisions. This blog explores these tools and why businesses should consider workshops for developing scenarios to address geopolitical risks.

The Importance of Scenario Development

Geopolitical events are rarely the result of linear processes. Analysts must consider a wide array of interconnected factors. Dietrich Dörner’s The Logic of Failure offers a striking example of this complexity. In his study, participants tasked with managing a fictional country often exacerbated its problems by focusing on singular issues while ignoring others. For analysts, this underscores the need to develop scenarios that account for diverse variables, anticipate unintended consequences, and highlight gaps in intelligence.

Why Businesses Should Use Workshops for Geopolitical Risk Management

Workshops, such as seminar wargames, are invaluable for businesses facing geopolitical uncertainties. Here’s why:

Interactive Exploration of Scenarios: Workshops create a dynamic environment where participants role-play decisions and observe their impacts. This fosters a deeper understanding of how geopolitical events could unfold and affect the organization.
Uncovering Hidden Vulnerabilities: By simulating different perspectives—adversaries, partners, and stakeholders—businesses can identify overlooked risks and vulnerabilities within their operations or strategies.
Strategic Decision-Making: Workshops help businesses prepare for uncertainty by visualizing best- and worst-case scenarios. This equips decision-makers with actionable insights and contingency plans.
Encouraging Collaboration and Diverse Perspectives: Engaging various stakeholders in scenario planning ensures a richer understanding of the problem. Diversity in thought helps mitigate groupthink and strengthens the analysis.

Wargaming: Learning Through Roleplay

Wargames are an excellent tool for exploring geopolitical scenarios. These simulations place participants in the roles of key stakeholders, encouraging them to make decisions and respond to consequences. Whether small-scale seminar wargames or large-scale multi-organization simulations, these exercises illuminate critical variables and decision-making dynamics.

For instance, Andrew Marshall’s 1987 wargames predicted the Cold War’s end by simulating irrational decision-making and unexpected geopolitical shifts. This approach revealed insights that traditional analysis might have missed. Similarly, businesses can use wargames to anticipate competitor actions or geopolitical disruptions.

Fictional Intelligence (FICINT): Blending Fact and Fiction

FICINT uses storytelling to explore futuristic threats and trends grounded in reality. By blending data-driven insights with imaginative scenarios, FICINT helps organizations visualize the impact of events like supply chain disruptions or cyberattacks.

Take the example of a hypothetical Chinese invasion of Taiwan. A FICINT report could detail the immediate and long-term consequences for businesses, from disrupted trade routes to regulatory challenges. This storytelling approach engages decision-makers and encourages proactive planning.

Getting into the Mindset of Adversaries

Both wargames and FICINT require analysts to step into the shoes of key players—adversaries, allies, and neutrals alike. Analysts must answer critical questions:

What are their objectives?
How do culture and ideology influence their decisions
What are the likely triggers for their actions?

Developing a manifesto for each player can serve as a framework for understanding these perspectives, enriching the analysis.

The Role of Data Capture

The success of wargames and FICINT depends on meticulous data capture. Analysts must record not just decisions but the reasoning and frameworks behind them. This data forms the backbone of actionable insights, helping organizations track critical indicators and refine their strategies.

Conclusion

For businesses navigating an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape, tools like wargames, FICINT, and scenario workshops are indispensable. These methods not only help forecast potential risks but also equip organizations to respond strategically. By embracing these innovative approaches, businesses can turn uncertainty into opportunity and secure their competitive edge in a complex world.

4 December 2024 - What are the implications of Political Polarization for businesses?

Polarization has intensified in the U.S. and the Western world, impacting businesses significantly. In 2023, Bud Light faced backlash after hiring trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, losing over a quarter of its sales, a decline from which it has yet to recover. This controversy signaled a broader trend, with more companies in 2024 facing pushback for supporting “woke” values, leading to a pullback on policies like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion).

In 2024, Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and others scaled back or discontinued their DEI programs and support for social events. These changes reflect efforts to align with conservative customer bases, as association with left-wing principles increasingly impacts sales and brand loyalty. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reported that 60% of consumers base purchasing decisions on their politics, highlighting the growing importance of political alignment for brands.

Multinational corporations are also facing internal and external pressures from their involvement in geopolitical issues. For instance, Google dealt with internal protests over its $1.2 billion contract with Israel, known as Project Nimbus, which drew criticism for its implications in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Google fired 50 employees, underscoring the internal tensions companies face when navigating contentious political matters.

The polarized environment has led to high-stakes consequences for corporate leaders. In 2024, Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave resigned following backlash over his comments on Israel, demonstrating the reputational risks associated with speaking on sensitive issues. Anti-Israel protests spreading across college campuses in the U.S. and beyond also pose long-term risks, as these attitudes may enter the corporate workforce in the future. Some companies have taken a strong stance by refusing to hire students involved in these protests, while others, like Hims & Hers CEO Andrew Dudum, initially supported the protesters, only to face financial backlash as the company’s stock dropped by 8%.

For corporations, engaging in political debates—directly or indirectly—can result in reputational damage, financial losses, and disrupted business partnerships.

⚠️ Implications for Corporations

🔁 Changing Market: In 2025, companies will face an increasingly polarized consumer base, particularly in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election and other major events.

⚡ Risk from Inaction: Companies that remain neutral may still face risks based on public perception and consumer interpretations of their actions (or inaction).

🤝 Reputational Harm: Businesses that publicly support political or social issues can expect reputational damage, declines in sales, and potential boycotts.

🚨 Online and Employee Safety: Harassment and threats may arise depending on the issue.

27 November 2024 - The Rise of Nationalism: Implications for Global Corporations

The resurgence of nationalism is part of the broader trend of weakening globalization. Nationalism, which prioritizes devotion to one’s nation, culture, and people, is rising worldwide. In Europe, once thought to have moved beyond nationalism with the EU project, a nationalist resurgence is visible. Brexit exemplifies this, as UK voters opted to reclaim control over fiscal and immigration policies. Similar nationalist shifts are occurring in the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, and Italy, while France and Germany are also contending with right-wing parties challenging the EU’s influence.

Historically, European nationalism has been linked to conflict, such as the revolts of 1848, the Serbian assassination that sparked World War I, and the rise of Nazism leading to World War II. While a repeat of this violence is unlikely, the increasing nationalist sentiment suggests that the EU and other supranational bodies could decline over the medium term.

Nationalism is also rising in the global south. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP promotes Hindu nationalism, emphasizing cultural ties with Hindu-influenced regions. In Latin America, countries like Brazil, Argentina, and El Salvador have seen the rise of right-wing nationalist leaders. Even the United States is experiencing a populist nationalist wave with former President Trump’s influence on the Republican Party.

Nationalism’s global revival, driven by economic and cultural anxieties, challenges multinational corporations (MNCs) as markets become more protectionist, signaling a shift towards a fragmented, less globalized world.

⚠️ Implications for Corporations

📉 Democratic Decline: The rise of nationalism may accelerate democratic backsliding, leading to increased political risks, arbitrary policymaking, and nationalization of industries in some regions.

🤝 Reputational Harm: Companies that collaborate with nationalist parties may face reputational risks internationally, although they may gain favor domestically with nationalist governments.

🫤 Employee Dissatisfaction: Many employees, particularly in technology firms, hold liberal views and may resist or protest corporate decisions aligned with nationalist policies, as seen at companies like Google and Amazon.

🛑 Value Opposition: Corporations that publicly support liberal social policies may face pushback from nationalist governments that oppose these values, potentially affecting their operations and reputation.

🚧 Resource Access Issues: Resource nationalism could impact supply chains, limiting access to essential raw materials and complicating international trade.

16 October 2024 - Great Power Competition and Its Impact on Global Business

The resurgence of great power competition has become one of the most critical dynamics shaping global geopolitics today. After a relative period of calm following the Cold War, this rivalry has returned to the forefront of international relations, influencing the strategies of governments and businesses alike. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have recognized this reality in their respective National Security Strategies, acknowledging that competition between major powers—primarily the U.S., China, and Russia—is central to global stability. Recent events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the growing influence of China in Africa, and shifting alliances in Asia are all evidence of this renewed strategic rivalry.

Historically, great power politics revolves around the competition for influence, resources, and military power, often leading to shifts in global alliances and conflicts. In the past, the Cold War defined the bipolar rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with each power seeking to expand its ideological and strategic reach. Today, however, this competition is more multipolar, with China, Russia, and regional powers like India and Brazil playing critical roles in reshaping the global order. Nowhere is this more evident than in regions like Africa and Asia, where the strategic interests of these powers converge, leading to economic investment, military posturing, and proxy conflicts.

⚠️ For corporations, this renewed competition brings significant risks:

🚧 Trade Barriers: Companies may face tariffs and sanctions, as seen in the U.S.-China trade war.

🚛 Supply Chain Disruptions: Conflicts, such as those in Eastern Europe, can destabilize supply chains.

🏛️ Political Risk: Operating in contested regions exposes businesses to nationalization and instability.

💻 Technological Decoupling: U.S.-China tech rivalry could force companies to navigate different standards or markets.

🤝 Reputation Risks: Doing business in politically sensitive regions can pose ethical challenges and brand risks.

As great powers vie for dominance, multinational corporations must carefully assess these risks to thrive in an increasingly multipolar world.

See Insight Forward's Top 10 Geopolitical Risks for Businesses in 2025 here https://lnkd.in/eJpDKdDj

11 September 2024 - Terrorism the Ever Present Danger

Today is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. While America continues to mourn the losses from that day, it also reminds us of the persistent threat from terrorists who wish to do us and our principles harm. Because terrorism constantly threatens governments, corporations, and populations, security organizations regularly incorporate the risks from this specific type of political violence into their assessments.

Of course, terrorism has a long history. The first group that engaged in what we now call terrorism was the Zealots of first-century Palestine who would stab Romans and collaborators before disappearing into a crowd (interestingly, one of Jesus’s Apostles belonged to this group). Throughout the centuries there were other groups like the Assassins of Persia and Thugi of India. However, terrorism became significantly more prominent in the late 1800s and throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. In the United States, an anarchist terrorist killed President McKinley in 1901 while during this time right-wing terrorists (KKK) harassed and targeted black Americans. During the Cold War, Marxist terrorists persistently threatened politicians with targeted assassinations and kidnapping. At the turn of the century, al-Qaeda committed the largest terrorist attack in history on 9/11, killing almost three thousand people.

Terrorism has taken place all over the world, destroying the civic peace expected in society. Security professionals must consider how the threat of terrorism is evolving in the modern period. Often throughout the last century, different ideologies tend to dominate at different points. In the early 1900s, it was anarchists, but in the mid-1900s it was ethno-nationalist and left-wing terrorism. By the late 1900s, terrorism was dominated by right-wing extremists while we saw the rise of Islamist terrorism. Currently, the evidence suggests right-wing terrorism is the dominant threat in the West, but Islamist terrorism is the biggest threat in Africa and the Middle East.

This anniversary should remind security professionals that terrorism remains a constant threat to organizations and governments. And it should also remind them threats can manifest from around the world if they do not pay attention.

4 September 2024 - Pandemics and Geopolitics

Pandemics have influenced a considerable amount of human history, playing a critical role in shaping societies. Even the Bible named pestilence as one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. In Rome, the Antonine plague of the second century AD claimed 25% of the empire. A plague in Athens during the Peloponnesian War contributed to the city’s defeat. The Black Death in fourteenth-century Europe killed approximately a third of the continent, which ironically helped many countries by increasing wages and allowing for better nutrition. Just over a century ago, the Spanish Flu that happened at the end of World War I helped lead to the malaise of the period, killing millions of people globally. Most recently, the Covid-19 pandemic caused major socio-political and economic disruptions, not just due to health problems, but also the political responses. Such pandemics, plagues, and poxes are a regular part of the human condition that occur frequently, if unpredictably.

Once again, corporations and security teams need to assess the risks (political and otherwise) of pandemics. Mpox has been declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the second time in two years, due to a surge in cases in Central Africa and the emergence of a new, severe subtype. The first PHEIC in 2022 followed a multi-country outbreak affecting nearly 100,000 people, including 32,000 in the U.S. The risk of the current outbreak spreading globally is considered low, but the emergence of the new subtype called clade Ib in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has raised concerns. This new strain, which has spread rapidly through sexual networks, is part of clade I and tends to cause more severe illness compared to the milder clade II strain, which was responsible for the 2022 outbreak.

Governments are significantly less likely to respond to Mpox like they did to Covid, even if it spreads rapidly. Public trust in government declined because of pandemic mismanagement and hypocrisy and most governments are extremely unlikely to do anything to cause similar economic damages as they did during Covid. According to the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at USC, the Covid pandemic cost the United States $14 trillion (through 2023). They reached that number by looking at lost revenue from mandatory lockdowns and modeling shifts in personal behavior and consumption. Other research showed the detrimental impact the pandemic had on energy prices, access to critical semiconductors, and cost of living.

The political and geopolitical implications of pandemics need to be considered, especially in how those implications will impact business operations. Everything from health diplomacy and cooperation to economic impacts to available resources to supply chains to humanitarian problems to scientific advancement is part of modern pandemics. Like with other major political and security risks, organizations need to prepare.

21 August 2024 - What is Liberalism

Modern political ideologies have their roots in the Enlightenment, though their fundamentals stretch back further. The Enlightenment began what we now call liberalism by challenging established institutions, traditions, and customs in favor of liberty and equality. John Locke is regarded as the founder of liberalism, basing his philosophy on the social contract (consent of the governed), where government purpose is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke wrote during the late 1600s when England overthrew the Stuart monarchy and installed William and Mary of Orange during the Glorious Revolution. Shortly after, Parliament passed the English Bill of Rights, embodying the Enlightenment's liberal ideas. As Locke stated in Second Treatise of Government, “[T]hat being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Chapter II, section 6). Classical liberalism would later be politically applied by figures like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but would not remain.

Modern liberalism began in the late 1800s when thinkers sought to expand the government’s role to address Victorian-era problems such as workers' rights, immigration challenges, and severe poverty. The connection between classical and modern liberalism lies in their shared focus on liberty and equality, though the Progressives redefined these concepts. Liberty was no longer just negative rights (freedom from government interference) but also positive rights (access to certain goods and services). Equality evolved from being purely legal equality to incorporating social and material equality. American presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman advanced these ideas, as did European leaders like David Lloyd George, Clement Attlee, and Willy Brandt.

Another reinterpretation of liberalism took place in the 1960s, introducing a new emphasis on absolute social equality that diverged from traditional understandings of liberty. This form of liberalism, now often labeled as "wokism" but better described as post-modern liberalism, replaced Locke’s social contract with a Rousseauian version. For instance, whereas classical and modern liberals championed free speech, this latest iteration often opposes it, asserting a right not to be offended rather than a right to express one’s views. Post-modern liberalism argues that reality is determined entirely within the self (solipsism), and any challenge to that reality is harmful, reflecting a radical reinterpretation of Millian utilitarianism.

The political left is undergoing an ideological battle between classical, modern, and post-modern liberalism. The Democratic Party in the United States is navigating this internal conflict, and the upcoming election will serve as a referendum on which prevails. This will have far-reaching implications for everything from protests to future elections.

14 August 2024 - Nationalism in Europe

European nationalism is invariably (and understandably) associated with war, conflict, and genocide. Whether it was the revolts of 1848 or the Serbian nationalists who started World War I by assassinating the Archduke or Nazism in Germany engulfing the continent in World War II or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans with the breakup of Yugoslavia, nationalism has frequently been a critical variable and cause of war.

European nations sought to abrogate the negative influences of nationalism by creating the supranational European Union, creating a shared economic sphere that would integrate all the countries and make nationalist conflict unfathomable.

However, that does not mean nationalism has died out. Rather, nationalism is returning because of the overwhelming failure of the European project. The EU imposed rules and regulations that went against the principle of subsidiarity, such as farming policy, and many local customs, such as forcing Catholic countries to accept secular values. These impositions catalyzed the return of nationalist revolts, most importantly Brexit.

Voters in the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union to gain greater control over their fiscal, regulatory, and immigration policies. Importantly, the vote to leave the EU occurred with a slim margin (51.89% to 48.11%), which shows that these nationalist tendencies do not need to be the overwhelming majority of a country.

Besides Brexit, nationalist shifts have taken place in the Netherlands with protests by farmers and the election of right-wing populists in places like Poland, Hungary, and Italy. Even the supposedly liberal countries of France and Germany are now having to contend with nationalist and right-wing parties, again due to the failures of the European project and the perception of governments unwilling to listen to their citizens.

While Europe is unlikely to descend into the same nationalist violence as before, the rise of nationalism across the continent does indicate that the EU and supranational organizations will likely decline over the medium term. In addition, if these nationalist governments can ameliorate economic and social problems in places like Italy, then similar parties are highly likely to gain traction elsewhere. This would fundamentally alter the current political and geopolitical landscape as these parties are (generally) less hostile to Russia, opposed to immigration, and opposed to neoliberal economics.

08 August 2024 - Multipolarity: The New Normal

Historically, the international order was predicated on multipolarity punctuated by unipolar moments when a truly grand empire took over. That multipolarity is returning not so much because of the decline of the United States, but rather because of the “rise of the rest.” No longer can the US count on being the undisputed global hegemon, and peer competitors and regional powers alike are taking notice. A central element of Russia’s foreign policy is promoting and seeking multipolarity. This is done because Russia knows it is not capable of challenging the United States or Europe by itself. Rather, Russia will need the support of regional powers, such as the military juntas in Africa, to compete more effectively.

On the other hand, China has to be more careful in how they, promote and handle multipolarity as rising powers are more likely to balance against the Middle Kingdom. Several potential and current middle powers in Asia, such as India, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam, all have the potential for conflict with China over territory, trade interests, and general security. Not only does China need to be concerned with those balancing against them, but they will need to be concerned about being drawn into a conflict by countries they try to use against regional competitors. For example, Pakistan could very well bring China into a war with India, or arbitrary brinkmanship could reignite war on the Korean Peninsula. China was successful in managing multipolarity before, e.g., opening with the US to balance against the USSR. But that was when they were a rising power, not the one seeking hegemony.

How the United States decides to handle multipolarity will also be essential to forecasting global events. Similar to China, the US historically managed multipolarity as a rising power. It was not until after the Cold War and the unipolar moment that the US stood above all others. The unipolar moment, though, was just that: a moment. By the second George W. Bush administration (2005-09), America was already facing the rise of BRICS, peer competition with China, failures in military interventions, and a difficult global financial crisis. Both Obama and Trump attempted to shift US strategy to a multipolar approach (Pivot to Asia and 2018 National Defense Strategy, respectively), but they faced problems that prevented a full shift.

Regional powers, such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Indonesia will all have their own views and approaches. Regional institutions like the EU and AU will also impact how multipolarity plays out over the coming decades. Multipolarity is coming back, which is to be expected, but the critical questions surround how great powers, middling powers, and smaller states will respond as an unbalanced international order promotes conflict and chaos.

17 July 2024 - Right wing Populism and American Conservatism

American conservatism has gone through several stages of development since the American Revolution, and it is likely going through another change with Donald Trump and Trumpism having taken over the Republican Party. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, conservatism was primarily about establishing a centralized government and protecting the inherited liberties from the United Kingdom. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and John Jay led the way in this version of conservatism. Conservatism would not become a broader movement until the 1950s when William F. Buckley utilized fusionism to take over the Republican Party away from the “big government paternalism” of the New Deal and Great Society. Fusionism combined anticommunism, free market capitalism, and traditionalism to create modern American conservatism, best represented in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

However, fusionism would start to crack due to the Great Recession and failures of the Iraq War, and economic and social problems during the Obama administration would lead to the rise of a right-wing populist movement that would challenge the conservative establishment. The Tea Party was the forerunner to Trumpism, but his presidency would demonstrate the electoral viability of right-wing populism that combined the economic interests and the cultural values of the working and middle classes. Of course, populism is also not new to the United States, which has had a number of such movements. Jacksonian democracy brought populism to the front in the 1830s when he greatly expanded voting rights. The Know Nothing Party, William Jennings Bryan’s candidacy, McCarthyism, etc. were all populist movements that had a profound impact on American politics. However, these movements did not remain as political ideologies shift and change over time.

Conservative politics in the United States will have a tremendous impact on world stage as both Europe and Latin America are experiencing similar changes. All of these movements are shifting from the policies of fusionism to the kind of civic nationalism found in the current governments of Italy and Hungary. The transatlantic conservative alliance will determine everything from trade policies (e.g., higher tariffs and barriers) to the balance of power (e.g., being less hostile to Russia). Understanding the direction and changes of American conservatism will be critical to understanding the rise of right-wing populism globally and its impact on public policy.

3 July 2024 - Revolutions

"The British are coming! The British are coming!" These famous words marked the beginning of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775, dramatically altering the geopolitical landscape in unexpected ways. Although the United States eventually became a global hegemon, it took more than a century to achieve great power status.

The American Revolution illustrates two critical aspects of revolutions, serving as a useful case study in their successes and failures. First, revolutions often take time to be effective. America struggled for several decades to establish itself economically, facing several rebellions such as Shays’ Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Hartford Convention, and the Civil War. Additionally, the country had to revise its foundational document, necessitating the Constitutional Convention to address the flaws in the Articles of Confederation.

Despite their promise of significant social, political, or economic change, revolutions often fail and the negative impacts of failed revolutions can be profound and far-reaching. Revolutionary movements typically consist of diverse groups with differing agendas, and a lack of unified vision can lead to internal conflicts and power struggles. Effective leadership is crucial for maintaining cohesion and direction, and weak or divided leadership can result in disorganization and failure. President Washington addressed this issue by excluding Anti-Federalists from his administration while appointing competing factions (Jefferson and Hamilton) to his government. Many revolutions fail to manage this balance, leading to political, economic, and security problems.

The second aspect is the long-term geopolitical implications of revolutions. Short-term implications often arise from foreign intervention. External powers may support the existing government by providing military aid, financial support, or political backing to suppress the revolution. Neighboring countries or global powers may have vested interests in maintaining the status quo and preventing revolutionary success. If not for French intervention in the American Revolution, American independence would have been significantly less likely. France's involvement aimed to weaken the British Empire but ultimately triggered a series of events, including the failed French Revolution in 1789, the Quasi-War with the U.S., the Napoleonic Wars, and the Concert of Europe. Geopolitically, the American Revolution acted as a catalyst for major changes in Europe.

Finally, the United States emerged as a global hegemon about 200 years after the revolution. A long-term impact that would have been difficult to predict (except for Hamilton, who devised his economic system with this goal in mind). Nevertheless, analysts today should study past revolutions to understand how contemporary revolutions, rebellions, and coups might impact the political and geopolitical landscape over the longer term.

5 June 2024 - American Capitalism

Geopolitical risk for corporations must incorporate analysis on political economy and markets, which means understanding the United States. The US economy is the largest in the world with a GDP of $24.55 trillion ($76,329.58 per capita), and this is slightly larger than the entire GDP of the European Union. No other country can quite compare to how much money the US and Americans can spend. For example, the US federal budget is larger than the combined GDP of the UK and France. In 2022, US citizens and corporations Americans gave $499.33 billion to charity. This is more than the combined foreign aid by all OPEC members. When it comes to foreign aid and defense, the US spends more than any other country, and this allows NATO and other alliances to exist. Without such a robust and strong economy, the US could not afford to supplement the defense of the Western world.

During the early years of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, implemented several key policies that significantly contributed to the early economic development of the nation. His vision and strategies laid the groundwork for a strong federal government and a robust economy that would become accepted broadly during the 20th century. Hamiltonian economic policies were essential to American economic growth to this day, starting with a national bank that helps stabilize the national currency, manage debt, and create a uniform monetary system that is crucial for trade and economic stability (the Federal Reserve serves this purpose now). By creating a stable economic environment and a trustworthy financial system, Hamilton attracted both domestic and foreign investment. This influx of capital was critical for infrastructure development, such as roads, canals, and ports that facilitated commerce and trade. This is essentially the policy approach still used by the US today, and that continues to allow the American economy to be stronger than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.

How the US economy performs directly impacts the rest of the world, both negatively and positively. For example, the Great Recession started because of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States. However, the United States continues to drive significant advances in modern technologies that sustain economic growth. Geopolitical analysts need to understand the foundations of the US economy and how it will develop over the coming years to forecast changes in technology, finance, and security. Political choices will also matter in understanding these problems as well.

Insight Forward maintains that market economies are more organizationally efficient and beneficial, and the company will continue to analyze the impact to corporations from that perspective when assessing how the US economy will determine risks and opportunities.

20 March 2024 - Putin's World

President Vladimir Putin leads Russia in a way that aspires to bring back the historical identity and prestige that he believes his country deserves. The security world and corporations should understand his worldview to grasp what he is trying to accomplish with his foreign policy decisions. When it comes to the basis of his ideology, Orthodox Christianity and arch-traditionalism are the critical components of that framework. Despite coming up in the Soviet Union, Putin remained an Orthodox Christian, and he brought his religious views to the nature of government and the identity of the country. Furthermore, he is deeply informed by Russian history from the past 400 years, including its culture, literature, and institutions. That is why he maintains a national identity that appears archaic to many Westerners.

Geopolitically, Putin has a deeply insecure understanding of Russia’s position because he believes the West wants to keep Russia weak and inferior. According to his understanding, this is happening through NATO’s expansion and left-wing cultural infiltration, which is how his general traditionalist ideology merges his cultural views with his understanding of security. Putin wants to keep a sphere of influence that also acts as a territorial buffer from enemies, which is why he opposed NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. When it comes to culture, though, that equally informs his foreign policy. His justification for invading Ukraine was that the land forms part of Russia, and bringing it back to the motherland is about national identity. This ideological orientation is why Putin directly opposes Western liberalism and leftism which he views as a threat to the national identity. So, he interferes in elections to make people doubt liberal democracy, and he seeks to influence other authoritarians in the Middle East and Africa that the West opposes.

We need to understand how Putin views the world because his behavior is largely predictable within this paradigm. Putin is driven not only by perceived physical threats from NATO but also by cultural and ideological threats to his understanding of Russian national identity. If we apply this intellectual paradigm to Putin’s decision-making, his behavior becomes more easily understandable.

13 March 2024 - Understanding Islam and Politics

Religion is an even more contentious issue than politics, but security professionals and analysts must be knowledgeable and able to objectively discuss both to effectively do their jobs. As Muslims around the world have started participating in Ramadan, a time of fasting and devotion, it is an appropriate period to increase one’s understanding of Islam and how that intersects with socio-political issues. Most Westerners are either divided between Christianity or secularism, and so many misunderstand the fundamental premises of Islam. To start, Islam views Allah (God) as monistic and voluntaristic in contradistinction to Christianity which views God as trinitarian and covenantal. This forms the basis of Muslims’ metaphysical and physical ontology.

Scholar Jean Bethke Elshtain demonstrated in her book Sovereignty that how one views the sovereignty of God leads to how one views the sovereignty of the state. Therefore, the Islamic ontology is fundamental to how politics developed in the Muslim world, including in foreign policy. This is why Islamist parties seek to impose Quranic rules on all of society (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), but there are more liberal versions as well that just want policy to follow Islamic ethics. When it comes to government and public policy in places like the Middle East, though, there is a complicated interaction between Islam and imperial history. In countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the majority of Muslims want policy to be influenced and guided by the Quran and Islamic theology. However, in places like Lebanon and Tunisia which were deeply influenced by Western colonialism, Islam has less influence.

Foreign policy by majority Muslim countries or Islamist governments tends towards the Manichean by bifurcating the world into dar al-Islam and dar-al Harb (see Henry Kissinger’s World Order). Critical to the concept is the ummah, the global Muslim community, because Islamic leaders are supposed to protect and defend the community. Of course, Islam is not the only religion to take on a universalist approach, but analysts need to understand this paradigm to forecast how these governments will behave. Altogether, analysts should observe the intersection of Islamic theology, public policy, and geopolitics because it is critical to understand international relations and regional issues in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

21 February 2024 - Ukraine: A New Model for War

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine provides insight into the evolving approach to warfare as the use of drones and cyberattacks is producing a new model of conflict. While the nature of war never changes in Clausewitzian terms, this is the first time that the security world has seen a real cyberwar. Previously, there were extensive cyber espionage campaigns, targeted cyberattacks, and zero-day markets, but this is the only real case study analysts and security professionals have where two governments organized deliberate cyberattacks against each other.

Each side has gone after critical infrastructure and government institutions, using defense agencies and patriotic hackers to support regular military operations. This has included the energy grid and communications companies, and such attacks were also done by essentially “cyber militias.” The main lesson from this cyberwar appears to be that cyberattacks have been primarily used as an auxiliary force to supplement regular forces.

The other major lesson from this cyberwar is that multinational technology companies have actively participated in the conflict, ranging from Microsoft to Meta to Google. For example, Microsoft has focused on providing threat intelligence to relevant parties and even targeting the infrastructure of Russian APTs. Companies like Meta and Google took down disinformation on their platforms. The future of warfare is highly likely to resemble the Russia-Ukraine war in that multinational corporations will actively participate. Before this was generally the “military-industrial complex” in that corporations provided weapons and support, but this war has shown how technology companies will directly engage in the effort through multiple avenues.

Importantly, the conflict is ongoing, and it will take future research and analysis to see how the cyberwar impacted the conflict more broadly, whether it was strategically and/or tactically useful, or if it made any difference at all. However, there is no doubt that cyberwar is now here and will be part of interstate conflict from now on.