Spending 5% of GDP on military now would be absolutely nuts
By Marcus Stanley | Responsible Statecraft | January 24, 2025
As a brand new Congress and administration settles in, the groundwork is being laid for a historic increase in military spending that could lead to catastrophic implications for the federal budget.
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), the new head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is calling for a $120 billion hike over the next two years, and other key Republicans are calling for an increase of up to $200 billion. This follows a rise of some $160 billion over the four years of the Biden Administration.
But the accounting of annual dollar figures amid the technicalities of the budget reconciliation process today is perhaps less important than the conceptual and practical sea change in the long term approach to military budgeting being planned. Sen. Wicker is advocating setting a new floor for military spending at 5% of the national economy – a scheme apparently endorsed by President Donald Trump at Davos yesterday when he called for “all NATO nations” (presumably including the United States) to spend at least 5% of GDP on defense.
The implications of spending at least 5% of the entire national economy on the military each year are striking. The first is the sheer dollar figures involved. In 2024, a 5% floor would have led to approximately $1.45 trillion in military spending as opposed to the actual level of $886 billion — a difference of over $550 billion or some 60%.
That level of spending won’t happen overnight. The scale of the increase implied by a 5% floor is such that it can’t be accommodated in one or even two to three years. The additional funds are so great that the entire U.S. military-industrial complex would need to be scaled up to absorb them. But the long-run budgetary implications of such an increase are extremely concerning.
In recent work for the Quincy Institute, Steve Kosiak, a former senior White House defense budget official, projects that by 2034 a 5% of GDP floor on military spending would lead to an almost 90% increase in real (inflation adjusted) spending as compared to the current path for Pentagon spending.
A sustained expansion in military spending of this size would have a tremendous impact on the ability of the government to pursue other national priorities. This is especially true since the Trump Administration also appears committed to a major tax cut (far larger than any new revenues brought in by potential tariffs).
As Kosiak’s work documents, the combination of a massive boost in Pentagon spending and tax breaks would require either major cuts in central entitlement programs like social security or health care, or a long-term explosion in the Federal debt to levels two to three times the highest levels ever previously recorded. While it’s become fashionable to claim that “deficits don’t matter,” expanding the Federal debt to such unprecedented levels carries significant risks to economic growth.
Besides the implications for spending and deficits, a commitment to spend at least 5% of national economic production on the military would change the essential nature of military budgeting. Instead of setting the budget by assessing actual concrete needs for national defense — a process that already leads to a significant degree of waste and abuse— a spending floor would require spending to mechanically increase as the size of the economy grows, regardless of documented military needs.
The effect would be like a “military tax” on the U.S. economy, requiring a nickel of each additional dollar of production to go to the Pentagon.
The policy would also have significant effects globally, as it would tend to hard-wire an arms race dynamic into the world economy. With the U.S. and close allies increasing military spending each year as their economies grew, U.S. rivals would also feel pressure to spend more in order to keep up. Global military expenditures, already at the highest levels ever recorded, would likely spiral upward. This in turn would feed the U.S. justification for continuing to increase military spending.
While rivals that are significantly poorer than we are, such as Russia, Iran, or North Korea, would certainly feel stress to their economy in trying to keep up with our spending, a wealthier manufacturing power like China has a great deal of ability to boost military spending in response to a U.S. buildup. Estimates of Chinese military spending vary, but are generally at around 2% of GDP, leaving substantial room for growth.
At various times, when the economy was much smaller, the U.S. has certainly spent more than 5% of GDP on the military. But today, this would represent a much higher absolute level of military expenditure. More importantly, it is not necessary to actually defend the American public or secure vital national interests.
Sen. Wicker’s defense spending plan claims that the U.S. confronts “the most dangerous threat environment since WW2” due to facing an “axis of aggressors” that includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It claims that America needs to budget for fighting at least two active and protracted wars simultaneously, one to defeat China and another to defeat a second aggressor in another part of the world, while maintaining additional military forces in reserve to intimidate other potential aggressors.
Further, it insists that during such a conflict we must assume that America could not rely on effective military assistance from its alliance network.
Rather than assuming that it is necessary to prepare for this terrifying and extreme scenario of an isolated America fighting a two-front global war against multiple nuclear powers, we should ask whether it can be averted by less risky and expensive means than almost doubling our military budget over the next decade.
The decision to prepare for a “nuclear WW3” scenario would require major economic sacrifices for the entire American population. Unfortunately, it appears that many in Washington wish to take us in this direction.
Marcus Stanley is the Director of Studies at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Prior to joining the Quincy Institute, he spent a decade at Americans for Financial Reform. He has a PhD in public policy from Harvard, with a focus on economics.
Blocking Iran’s oil exports unattainable dream: Minister
Press TV – February 9, 2025
Iran’s Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad has said that the United States will never achieve its dream of cutting Iran’s oil exports to zero as touted by its new president Donald Trump.
“Blocking Iran’s oil exports is an unattainable dream,” said Paknejad on Sunday while reacting to Trump’s recent signing of an executive order to impose maximum pressure on Iran’s oil industry.
He insisted that Iran will always come up with solutions to circumvent US bans on its oil exports.
“The more the restrictions increase, the more complicated our solutions will be,” said the minister, adding that the experts and staff working in the Iranian petroleum industry have the capacities to deal with problems caused by US sanctions to the country’s production and exports of oil.
He said the US once experienced the futility of its maximum pressure policy on Iran during Trump’s first term in office in 2016-2020.
“They want to test it one more time and they will fail again,” said the minister.
The comments came several days after Trump announced he would use Washington’s unilateral regime of sanctions to disrupt Iran’s oil flows to markets in Asia and elsewhere.
Trump enacted a first round of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports in 2018, causing the country’s oil exports to drop for a brief period in late 2019 and in early 2020.
However, Iranian oil exports have gradually returned to pre-sanctions levels in recent years with estimates suggesting that the country is shipping more than 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, mostly to customers in China.
That comes as Iran’s oil exports had reached as low as 0.3 million bpd in 2019 when Trump removed sanction waivers granted to major Iranian oil customers.
Moscow comments on Baltic states’ switch from ex-Soviet grid
RT | February 8, 2025
The decision of Baltic nations to disconnect themselves from the unified energy system with Russia and Belarus will only worsen the economic prospects for the EU, the Russian Mission to the bloc has said, stressing that the move is politically motivated.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are all members of NATO and the EU, began the two-day process of unplugging from the BRELL Energy Ring on Saturday. They will then join the alternative European power grid, known as ENTSO-E. The step is part of EU nations’ effort to cut long-standing energy links with Russia.
“Disconnecting from the BRELL is a politically motivated move that will drive up regional electricity prices, make power grids less reliable, and further erode the EU’s economic competitiveness,” the mission said on Telegram on Saturday, emphasizing that European households and businesses, primarily in the Baltic countries, will bear the costs.
The mission stressed that the EU economy demonstrated “meager” growth of only 0.8% last year, and highlighted that the continued drive to break energy ties with Moscow would only worsen its prospects.
The three ex-Soviet republics decided to disconnect from BRELL and join ENTSO-E back in 2018. This month they plan to test their power grids in isolation before connecting to the EU energy system via Poland.
Built on the existing interconnected Soviet-era power systems, the BRELL energy ring was established on 7 February 2001. It synchronized the power systems of Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania under Moscow’s central dispatch. Initially, the Baltics depended on Russia for grid stability, while Russia relied on them to power its exclave of Kaliningrad. Russia has since upgraded energy infrastructure in Kaliningrad, reducing its reliance on the Baltic grid.
Authorities in the three states have repeatedly claimed that reliance on the network controlled by Russia jeopardizes their energy security, believing that Moscow could weaponize the electricity supply and sever them from the network on a unilateral basis. Such fears have never materialized.
Controlled by the state, Russian electricity prices are currently among the lowest in the world, averaging around $0.055 per kWh for consumers in 2024. Power prices in the EU vary from nation to nation, with Germany having the highest price per kWh last year at €0.3951 ($0.40).
Top Breakthroughs Proving China’s Tech Edge Over US
Sputnik – 01.02.2025
China’s newly unveiled DeepSeek AI model rivals US-made ChatGPT in efficiency but at a much lower cost.
This is just one example of China’s more cost-effective technological solutions compared to US analogs.
- Space: China’s Chang’e 6 successfully retrieved the first-ever samples from the Moon’s far side while the US struggles to bring two astronauts back from the ISS.
- Quantum computers: In 2020, China’s Jiuzhang became the first photonic quantum computer to achieve quantum supremacy. With Jiuzhang 2.0 and Zuchongzhi 2.1, China remains a top player in the field.
- Quantum communications: China launched the world’s first quantum communication satellite, Micius, in 2016. In 2024, Chinese and Russian scientists tested quantum communication over 3,800 km.
- Robots: China’s Unitree Go2 quadruped and G1 humanoid robots push global robotics leadership, offering cheaper alternatives to Boston Dynamics.
- Telecommunications: ZTE and Huawei made China a 5G leader. As the US imposes sanctions instead of competing on quality, China eyes 6G by 2030.
- High-speed trains: With over 40,000 km of high-speed rail, China has the world’s longest network, while the US rail system remains in disrepair.
- Drones: Chinese firms like DJI dominate the UAV market with affordable drones spreading worldwide, unlike pricier US alternatives.
Iran condemns ‘illegitimate’ US sanctions targeting oil exports
Press TV – February 7, 2025
Iran has strongly condemned new sanctions slapped by the administration of US President Donald Trump on the country’s oil industry, saying they run contrary to international rules and standards.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei denounced the bans as “completely unjustified” on Friday.
The remarks came a day after the US Treasury Department targeted more than a dozen individuals and companies, as well as vessels, claiming that they are facilitating the shipment of millions of barrels of Iranian oil to China.
The sanctions were the first on Iran after Trump restored his so-called “maximum pressure” campaign on the country.
“The decision of the new US administration to put pressure on the Iranian nation by preventing Iran’s legitimate trade with its economic partners is an illegitimate, illegal and wrongful act, whose responsibility lies on the US government,” Baghaei added.
“The Islamic Republic holds the US accountable for the consequences of such unilateral and bullying measures.”
On Tuesday, Trump signed the presidential memorandum reimposing a tough anti-Iran policy, which he practiced in his first presidential term after unilaterally withdrawing Washington from the historic 2015 nuclear deal.
In an X post, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called Trump’s measure a failed experience.
He said the decision to restore maximum pressure policy will only compel “maximum resistance” on the part of Iran again, adding, “Smart people ought to choose ‘Maximum Wisdom’ instead.”
During his campaign trail for a second term, Trump had stated at an event in New York in September that, if re-elected, he would minimize the use of sanctions. He argued that employing sanctions excessively “kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents.”
“Look, you’re losing Iran. You’re losing Russia. China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency, as you know better than anybody,” Trump remarked.
On Tuesday, The New York Times said Trump had also implemented a strategy of maximum pressure in 2018, following his decision to withdraw the US from the nuclear accord with Iran that had been established under the Obama administration three years earlier.
“Mr. Trump still claims that was a major victory, but most outside analysts say it backfired,” the newspaper wrote.
Trump’s Foreign Policy – Strategy Behind the Noise?
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 5, 2025
Trump’s actions in the international system are defined by the aims to remake US foreign policy, and the tendency to make noise that keeps him in the headlines. A key challenge for analysts is therefore to distinguish between the strategy and the noise. Some of Trump’s messaging has a deliberate purpose while at other times he is seemingly improvising.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dropped a bombshell by arguing that the unipolar world order is over and the natural condition is multipolarity. Does this represent Trump’s decision to retire the “hegemonic peace” in Europe through NATO expansion (that triggered a war in Ukraine), or was it simply an independent commentary by Rubio? Trump wants peace with Russia and recognises that NATO provoked the war, but he also attempts to threaten Russia to accept US terms. Trump wants to end the wars in the Middle East, but he also sends 2000-pound bombs to Israel and casually suggests ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza. Trump wants to get along with China, but also to end China’s technological leadership. What is foreign policy and what is noise?
Iran to Trump: Another maximum pressure, another defeat for Washington

Press TV – February 5, 2025
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted that another round of deployment of the “maximum pressure” policy on the part of the United States against Iran will only lead to another defeat.
“The policy of maximum pressure has already proven to be a failure, and any attempt to revive it will only lead to another defeat,” the top diplomat told reporters on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting on Wednesday.
Araghchi was referring to the policy that the US adopted during Donald Trump’s former tenure, as part of which Washington quit a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and world powers, returned the sanctions that the agreement had lifted, and piled up even more illegal and unilateral bans against the Islamic Republic.
Retaliating against the measures, Iran took legitimate nuclear steps that have featured its operationalizing advanced centrifuges among other things.
The country also explored various means to skirt the sanctions and boost its economy by fostering foreign trade and enhancing domestic production, causing Washington to suffer “maximum defeat” in adoption of such policy.
On Tuesday, Trump promoted new “tough” measures aimed at, what Washington has called, “deterring” Iran from obtaining a “nuclear weapon.”
Trump also signed a presidential memorandum, authorizing stricter illegal actions against Iran, while saying, “They can’t have a nuclear weapon, we’d be very tough if they insist on doing that.”
Washington’s adversarial stance comes despite Tehran’s repeated assurances that its nuclear activities remain in full compliance with international regulations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s invariable verification of the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy program.
Reacting to Trump’s remarks, Araghchi said, “If the main issue is that Iran should not pursue nuclear weapons, this is achievable and not a difficult matter.”
“Iran’s stance is clear, and it is a member of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and there is also the fatwa (religious decree) of the Leader, which has clarified the matter for us,” he added.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s has prohibited pursuance, attainment, and storage of such non-conventional arms through an official decree as per religious and moral grounds.
“The Leader’s fatwa has made Iran’s position crystal clear,” Araghchi concluded.
‘Iran has never had, will never have nuclear weapons program’
Also on Wednesday, Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), likewise reacted to Trump’s remarks, saying, “Iran has never had, does not have, and will not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran’s approach in this regard is absolutely clear.”
He added, “Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is being implemented within the framework of Safeguards [Agreement] and the NPT.”
Germany: Leader of left-wing BSW party calls for referendum on migration

Remix News | February 4, 2025
German MP Sahra Wagenknecht, who leads the self-proclaimed BSW party, urged a referendum on migration in an interview. Referendums on migration are not unprecedented in Europe, the first was held in Hungary in 2016, and the second in Poland in 2023,
“A migration policy that is supported by the majority of the population requires a referendum that gives the federal government a fundamental direction,” Wagenknecht told AFP over the weekend, as reported in Die Welt.
She believes a referendum with a clear result would counter the polarization of society and could take the wind out of the sails of the increasingly popular Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Wagenknecht further accused the German government of a failure in its migration policy.
“For 10 years, they have allowed a loss of control over migration, which the majority of people in Germany, including most well-integrated immigrants, do not want,” she said.
There is currently no legal basis for a federal referendum in Germany, although smaller states, such as Berlin, offer non-binding referendum votes on local issues. It is also unclear what the exact wording of Wagenknecht’s proposal would be. Many polls show that a majority of Germans want reductions in migrant numbers and say that migrants bring more disadvantages than benefits.
In the wake of soaring crime, terror attacks, and massive burdens on public service, Germans are now saying that migration is the “most important problem.” That is according to the research group Wahlen, which showed 41 percent of men and women listed this, in equal numbers, as the most important issue heading into national elections. That beats out the economy and concerns about the Alternative for Germany party (AfD).
In addition, a majority of Germans are in favor of permanent border controls and rejecting asylum seekers without documentation, according to Wahlen.
“Germans are divided on the question of whether the Union should accept votes from the AfD when’voting on a stricter migration policy: 48 percent of those surveyed think this is “not a good thing,’ 47 percent think it is ‘good.’ At the same time, a clear majority of those surveyed, 63 and 56 percent respectively, are in favor of rejecting asylum seekers without documents and of permanent border controls,” writes NZZ about the Wahlen research polling.
Other countries have utilized referendums, such as Hungary and Poland.
Hungary held a referendum on resettlement quotas in 2016, in which 98.36 percent of valid voters rejected the possibility of the European Union requiring the resettlement of migrants to Hungary, even bypassing Hungarian legislation.
In 2023, Poland held a referendum, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s deputy prime minister at the time, saying that it “will decide the fate of Poland and Poles, whether they can live in a safe, peaceful country.”
The US Is Reeking the Smell of Fear
By Hua Bin | January 31, 2025
DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has sent a shockwave through the US tech industry and Wall Street in the last week.
Its LLM R1, trained under $6 million and 2 months, has outperformed the latest offerings from OpenAI, Meta, Google and Microsoft, who have spent tens of billions and years on their models.
The DeepSeek AI app has topped download charts in the US and China, replacing ChatGPT as the No. 1 AI productivity tool.
Due to its breakthrough technology that shows powerful AI can be developed with very limited investment in compute, DeepSeek’s emergency has sent Nvidia stock reeling, losing as much as 17% on Monday and wiping out $600 billion in market cap.
Interestingly, as we speak, barely a few days after the shockwave on Wall Street, DeepSeek is experiencing a massive denial of service (DoS) attacks from the US on its servers, affecting new registrations.
The US government, including the US Navy, has banned the use of DeepSeek for its personnel. And the congress is already discussing ways to slow down and disrupt DeepSeek.
This episode is eerily reminiscent of the Huawei ban, the TikTok ban, the chip ban, and the EV tariffs. The US regime has fully adopted the Tonya Harding school of how to win by breaking the leg of her competitor. Ask Nancy Kerrigan about it.
As thoughtful people put all these panic-ridden actions in context, the most obvious conclusion emerges – the US regime is not acting from any position of strength. It is behaving like a chicken little who cannot compete, win honestly, and is running scared.
The list of anti-China activities out of successive US regimes is long and varied –
– Trump started to impose 60% tariff on Chinese imports since 2017, a policy the Biden regime continued.
– The Biden regime imposed 100% tax on Chinese EVs, which have not yet even entered the US market. But the competitiveness of Chinese EVs is enough to get Biden to enact pre-emptive tariffs.
– Biden regime imposed dozens of export controls on China, often using coercion against its own “allies” to follow suit such as Holland’s ASML and South Korea’s Hynix and Samsung.
– Biden regime put thousands of Chinese companies on the US entity list with all sorts of made-up justifications in hope of disrupting these companies’ operations.
– Trump is again making noises to impose 100% tariffs on Chinese imports. He is going further to threaten invading Panama and Greenland to contain China.
– The FBI launched the infamous China Initiative to prosecute Chinese scientists working in the US, yielding zero prosecutable case after ruining the lives of numerous scholars and scientists.
McCarthyism is alive and well in the “land of the free”. J Edgar Hoover, the cross dresser, would be proud of the viciousness of the criminal organization he founded.
– The US regime has also harassed the hundreds of thousands Chinese students in the US, who are contributing $150 billion a year to the US economy. It is attempting to prevent Chinese students from studying in advanced technical fields. Anyone studying the defunct neoliberal economics or neoconservative politics and faux democracy is welcome.
– The congress passed a $1.6 billion smear fund in a so-called “anti-CCP propaganda” campaign. The best to counter other’s so-called propaganda is of course to launch a bigger one of your own.
– Every political appointee, as well as elected official, must espouse a fervent anti-China rhetoric in confirmation hearings, TV interviews, and corporate media op-eds. If you are not a China hawk, you have no place in the US power elite.
– Every Pentagon official and military industrial complex funded “think tanker” is expected to sound tough about the coming China US war. They come up with frightening concepts like the “unmanned Hellscape” strategy in the Taiwan Strait, seemingly unaware that China is years ahead in drone tech and production.
– The US has tried to mobilize its vassals from Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and India into anti-China military alliances. It has formed fearsome-sounding acronyms like AUKUS and QUAD, which are looked upon in awe only by itself.
The “most powerful country in the history of the world” (as self-claimed by multiple US regimes) seems unconfident to take on China on its own.
On the other hand, China is playing its own game. There is no political figure or “expert” jumping up and down on national or local TV to shout against the US. There is little attention paid to the theatrics in Washington and its client states.
China is focused on overcoming the difficulties posed by the aggressive US actions, reducing dependencies, and developing its indigenous capabilities.
– China has diversified its trades. Trading with emerging markets now account for more than 50% of China’s total trade. Trade with the US is less than 3% of its GDP as of 2024.
– Huawei has revived its mobile business and dethroned Apple to return to market leadership in China. Its leadership is more entrenched in the core telecom technology area. It is more vertically integrated with its own chip design and manufacturing supply chain.
Huawei has expanded its product offerings to include mobile operating systems (Harmony OS NEXT), electric vehicles, streaming services, and autonomous driving.
– In AI, Chinese companies are making rapid progress. In addition to DeepSeek, ByteDance, Baidu, Alibaba, 01.ai have all developed sophisticated LLM models.
– China leads in industrial AI applications from robotics, drones to autonomous driving. Companies such as Unitree, DJI, BYD, Xiaomi are integrating AI technologies into multiple areas of practical applications beyond generative AI.
China is also translating its industrial, technological and economic power into military power.
It has recently launched the world’s first 6th generation fighter prototypes (not one but two at the same time), the world’s first drone-carrier, the first hypersonic stealth unmanned airplanes for strike and reconnaissance, the first stealth unmanned warship, and the most powerful long-range air defence systems.
It is progressing rapidly in directed energy weapons, military 5G, atomic timing, and space warfare systems.
All these military technological breakthroughs were unveiled in the last 3 months.
While US politicians and military figures seem to conflate theatrics with reality, China is quietly amassing the capability to overwhelm its opponent in raw military might, industrial might and economic might.
As we watch with amusement the clownish performance of the US elite, the stinking odor of fear reeks so much you can smell it from across the Pacific.
Nvidia suffers record one-day stock market value drop
RT | January 28, 2025
Nvidia’s stock plummeted 17% on Monday, erasing approximately $589 billion from its market capitalization and marking the largest single-day loss in US corporate history. The sharp decline follows concerns over mounting competition from the Chinese artificial intelligence firm DeepSeek.
The selloff was part of a broader tech downturn that saw the Nasdaq Composite fall 3.1%, its worst day since December. Nvidia shares closed at $118.58, marking their most significant drop since March 2020 during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. Monday’s plunge also dethroned Nvidia as the world’s most valuable publicly traded company, at $2.9 trillion, pushing it back to third place behind Apple and Microsoft.
The downturn was triggered by DeepSeek’s launch of an open-source R1 model, which the company claims was trained in just two months at a fraction of the cost required by US-based firms like OpenAI. This development has raised questions about the sustainability of high AI-related spending, particularly on Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs) that dominate the AI chip market.
Nvidia itself described DeepSeek’s innovation as “an excellent AI advancement,” but argued that it expects demand for its chips to increase rather than diminish. “Inference requires significant numbers of Nvidia GPUs and high-performance networking,” a company spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.
Beyond Nvidia, the selloff extended to other tech and semiconductor companies. Broadcom saw its stock drop 17%, wiping out $200 billion in market value. Data center companies heavily reliant on Nvidia’s chips, such as Oracle, Dell, and Super Micro Computer, also experienced sharp declines of at least 8.7%.
Oracle’s chairman, Larry Ellison, saw his net worth fall by $27.6 billion, the most among affected billionaires, according to Forbes. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s personal fortune dropped by $21 billion, ranking as the second-largest personal loss.
The AI-fueled stock surge of the past two years has made companies like Nvidia central to market confidence. Nvidia’s shares soared 239% in 2023 alone, driven by demand from tech giants like Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon.
The latest development comes amid growing tensions in the AI race between the US and China. Despite US export restrictions on high-end chips, DeepSeek has managed to deliver competitive performance compared to OpenAI’s o1, relying on lower-spec GPUs.
US policymakers have taken note of the competition. Venture capitalist David Sacks, who was appointed as the White House’s AI and crypto advisor under President Donald Trump, called for renewed focus on innovation to counteract China’s advancements.
“DeepSeek’s success shows that the AI race will be very competitive,” Sacks wrote on X, urging the US to avoid complacency. Another billionaire venture capitalist, Marc Andreessen, has described DeepSeek’s emergence as a “Sputnik moment” for American tech.
Trump might defy policy to reach nuclear deal with Iran: Responsible Statecraft
Al Mayadeen | January 27, 2025
President Donald Trump has signaled an unexpected shift in the conventional US policy regarding Iran, revealing that the only issue his administration would face with the Islamic Republic is its development of a nuclear weapon.
Speaking on Fox News’ Hannity show on January 23, Trump did not address Iran’s regional policies, its defiance of the Israeli occupation, or the possibility of enforcing a regime change. Rather, his only focus was preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In this regard, a Responsible Statecraft report, written by Eldar Mamedov, recalled previous statements by Iranian officials, confirming that the nation does not seek nuclear weapons, adding that this could facilitate a political agreement between Washington and Tehran.
Tehran has also gestured its willingness to re-engage with the West, particularly following the election of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and his government coming to power. However, despite the mutual political willingness, the path to a deal remains highly complex and is vastly different from 2015, when the JCPOA curtailed Iran’s nuclear program.
Is a nuclear deal possible?
Following Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, his imposition of sanctions, and the EU’s failure to abide by the terms of the deal, Iran significantly advanced its program, including enriching uranium to 60%—a step away from weapon-grade levels (90%)—and deploying advanced centrifuges. Nuclear expert Kelsey Davenport notes that Iran could now produce enough material for five to six nuclear bombs in just two weeks, according to Mamedov.
The situation is further complicated by the limited access the IAEA has had to Iran since 2021, heightening concerns about unmonitored nuclear material potentially being moved to covert sites, as well as shifts in Iran’s nuclear rhetoric that suggest a potential rethinking of its doctrine.
While Tehran officially maintains it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, regional challenges could incentivize Iran to consider a nuclear deterrent, Mamedov explained.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats of a direct attack, possibly with US support and cover, could possibly motivate Iran to contemplate threshold weaponization as a defensive measure.
Mamedov writes that negotiations to achieve a potential deal would have to consider Iran’s extensive nuclear program, as well as the set of motivations it has to expand its nuclear manufacturing. In this context, concessions would have to be made, addressing the regional situation and Iran and its allies’ security concerns, which prompted nuclear development in the first place.
Although Iran’s Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei approved re-engagement and Pezeshkian’s reformist government advocated for a more proactive approach, majorly to ease US sanctions on the Islamic Republic, some Iranian politicians still have reservations, citing the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. This makes the matter one of “how to engage”, rather than if engagement should be initiated.
Some Iranian officials see little benefit in trading their nuclear leverage for uncertain sanctions relief. They are also bolstered by a new strategic partnership with Russia, which includes military and security cooperation, providing deterrence against potential attacks by “Israel” or the US.
The time is now!
Currently, proponents of waiting for a US initiative hold sway in Tehran at the moment. Reformists, however, argue this approach wastes time, suggesting Trump may seek a quick deal to enhance his peace-making image, especially with the Ukraine conflict dragging on. A limited framework deal, similar to Trump’s DPRK agreement, could be quickly drafted if the political decision is made, according to Mamedov.
While doubts remain about achieving a substantive follow-up deal, even a symbolic agreement—such as a handshake between Trump and an Iranian leader—could de-escalate tensions, marginalize pro-Netanyahu factions, and create room for broader negotiations addressing nuclear issues, sanctions, and regional concerns, Mamedov wrote.
Diplomatically, Iran has engaged with the EU and E3 (Britain, France, Germany) to prevent them from undermining progress by invoking UN sanctions before the October 2025 deadline. While Tehran has no illusions about the EU’s ability to restore the JCPOA without US involvement, these talks signal Iran’s seriousness about a deal and aim to avoid the E3 acting as spoilers out of fear of being excluded from future US-Iran agreements.
The most viable path forward seems to be a limited bilateral deal between the US and Iran to ease tensions, followed by multilateral negotiations with the original JCPOA signatories. With political will apparent on all sides, the opportunity to advance diplomacy is now.
