What you need to know

NATO allies face pressure to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP

At a high-level meeting in Brussels on 5 June, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on NATO member states to commit to raising their defense spending to 5% of GDP. The proposal, backed by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, reflects mounting concern within the alliance over growing global instability and renewed military threats—particularly in Europe’s east.

Under the proposed framework, 3.5% of GDP would be allocated to core military capabilities, while an additional 1.5% would go toward defense-related areas such as cybersecurity, logistics, and critical infrastructure. The plan marks a significant escalation from the current NATO baseline target of 2%, which only a third of member states presently meet.

The proposal has sparked immediate debate over both definitions and deadlines. While most countries support a rebalancing of defense commitments, they remain divided over the timeline and the scope of what constitutes “defense-related” expenditure. Some governments are wary of reclassifying civilian infrastructure projects under military budgets, while others see cyber defense and logistical resilience as essential components of modern security.

Germany’s Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, acknowledged that meeting the new benchmark would require a major expansion of Germany’s armed forces, estimating an increase of 50,000 to 60,000 active-duty troops. He cautioned against unrealistic expectations, suggesting that a more gradual buildup would be necessary to avoid logistical and political backlash.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed 2032 as a reasonable date to achieve the 5% goal, positioning it as a realistic yet ambitious benchmark. Indeed, Britain’s Keir Starmer has declined to specify a timeline for achieving his government’s own commitment to raise Britain’s defense expenditure to 3% of the country’s gross domestic product. Several Eastern European nations, particularly those bordering Russia or Belarus, are pushing for faster adoption.

The issue is expected to dominate discussions at the NATO summit later this month in The Hague. Leaders are set to debate not just the percentage increase, but also how resources will be allocated, what counts toward the target, and how compliance will be monitored. The outcome could reshape NATO’s force structure and readiness posture for the next decade.

The push for expanded defense spending comes at a time of strategic realignment. NATO is reinforcing its eastern flank, investing in new weapons systems, and confronting challenges ranging from Russian aggression and cyberwarfare to instability in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. The proposed increase to 5% signals a sharp departure from post-Cold War complacency and a return to full-spectrum defense planning.

Britain will build a new class of attack submarines, allocate billions to upgrade its nuclear warheads, and shift its military posture toward combat readiness, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced earlier this week.

He also unveiled what he described as a historic modernization of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, supported by an investment of £15 billion (approximately $20.3 billion).

Birth pangs in the birthplace of civilization

Iran officially rejects U.S. nuclear proposal

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly rejected a recent U.S. proposal intended to curb Tehran’s uranium enrichment program, declaring that Iran will continue its nuclear development activities.

The proposal, which included provisions for eventually halting enrichment or bringing it under an international consortium, and exporting enriched uranium stockpiles, was dismissed by Khamenei as an unacceptable infringement on Iranian sovereignty and a threat to the country’s strategic autonomy.

The rejection came as it seems the U.S. red-line on “zero enrichment” has effectively eroded within weeks of diplomatic engagement, a shift that has not gone unnoticed in Tehran.

While American officials reportedly anticipated a negative response, discussions are now under way in Washington regarding potential next steps.

President Donald Trump, addressing the matter during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that he had made clear the U.S. position that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. He stated that he told Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, saying “and on this, I believe we were in agreement.” This hardly sparks confidence.

In parallel with the breakdown of talks with Washington, Iran has been expanding its regional and strategic partnerships. Just days after meeting Egypt’s President, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held meetings in Beirut with the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, and Lebanon’s parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri. The discussions signal Tehran’s continued emphasis on cultivating influence through its regional network, even as diplomatic tensions with the West persist.

Meanwhile, Iran’s strategic alignment with Russia is gathering pace. Iran’s ambassador to Moscow announced that President Vladimir Putin is expected to visit Tehran in the near future, a move that will likely reinforce growing political and economic cooperation between the two countries. As part of this deepening relationship, Russia has pledged to invest $8 billion in Iran’s gas sector, with over $5 billion of that funding already committed to finalized projects.

This investment forms part of a broader realignment, as Iran pivots further toward eastern partners in response to prolonged isolation from the West. A recently signed free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union further cements Iran’s orientation toward a Russia-led economic bloc.

The collapse of the latest nuclear offer and Iran’s intensifying ties with Russia add a new layer of complexity to the broader Middle Eastern strategic landscape. While Washington and Moscow express shared concern over Iran’s nuclear trajectory, their diverging interests (particularly in energy markets and the Ukraine war) suggest limited room for genuine collaboration.

As Iran signals a firmer stance on enrichment and redoubles its engagement with Russia and its regional allies, prospects for reviving a comprehensive nuclear agreement appear increasingly remote.

The coming weeks may prove decisive in determining whether diplomatic off-ramps remain or whether the region is headed for renewed confrontation.

Instability from Sahel to Horn of Africa amid state fragility, Russian interference, & Islamist insurgencies

War against Islamist militants in Horn of Africa intensifies

The security crisis in the Horn of Africa is escalating, as regional and international actors step up military operations against Islamist militant groups amid a volatile and shifting battlefield. A confluence of new offensives, strategic withdrawals, and foreign support is rapidly reshaping the balance of power across Somalia and along its borders.

In a notable show of international backing, Türkiye has delivered advanced military hardware to the Somali National Army (SNA). The shipment includes Turkish-made T129 ATAK attack helicopters as well as utility helicopters, aimed at enhancing the SNA’s operational capacity in its long-running fight against al-Shabaab. The move follows high-level talks between Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, underlining Ankara’s growing military and diplomatic footprint in the region. On the important strategic relationship between Türkiye and Somalia, see our Factbox.

The timing of the delivery is significant. Al-Shabaab has escalated its activities in central Somalia, including a claim of responsibility for shooting down an African Union (AU) helicopter near the village of Hawadley in the Middle Shabelle region. The incident occurred shortly after the withdrawal of Burundian AU troops from the area, prompted by severe flooding that made their positions untenable. Al-Shabaab swiftly moved in to capture the village, raising alarms about a potential resurgence of the group in territory previously under AU control.

The African Union has confirmed the retreat of Burundian forces, and although it attributed the decision to extreme weather conditions, observers fear the vacuum may embolden militants to consolidate and expand their territorial holdings. The development illustrates a recurring challenge in the fight against al-Shabaab: the vulnerability of international peacekeeping operations to environmental disruptions and logistical constraints.

Kenya, meanwhile, has intensified cross-border counterterrorism operations. In a recent engagement near its border with Somalia, elite Kenyan troops reportedly killed several al-Shabaab fighters. Nairobi has grown increasingly concerned about the group’s capacity to infiltrate Kenyan territory and launch attacks, particularly in the northeast of the country. The Kenyan government has framed the latest operation as part of a broader regional effort to contain the jihadist threat.

Further north, in Somalia’s Puntland region, local security forces have launched a separate campaign against Islamic State (ISIS) affiliates. Officials claim to have captured several strategic positions from the group, which has maintained a limited but persistent presence in the mountainous areas of northeastern Somalia. Though smaller in scale than al-Shabaab, ISIS remains a destabilizing actor and continues to attract foreign fighters and funding.

Together, these developments point to a widening increasingly fragile security environment in the Horn of Africa.

Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief