In keeping with the tone of his administration - one of unpredictable, transactional, power politics: President Trump last night announced the resumption of arms shipments to Ukraine, and expressed great frustration with Putin. And in a stunning break with decades of U.S. foreign policy, U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye, Tom Barrack, suggested yesterday in a press conference in Beirut that America might be willing to see Hezbollah as divided between a political and a military wing. It’s an olive branch… and it might be the last olive branch offered before Israel resumes high intensity operations against Hezbollah. |
Center of Gravity
What you need to know
Trump resumes weapons shipments to Ukraine
President Donald Trump has reversed a recent decision to suspend U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine, following mounting criticism from both domestic lawmakers, European leaders, and officials in Kyiv.
The original pause last week, which involved halting deliveries of Patriot missile systems and other vital munitions, had raised alarm that Ukraine might be left dangerously exposed to intensified Russian aerial assaults.
Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, Trump announced the resumption of shipments, stating that the Ukrainians "have to be able to defend themselves" and adding that "we have to help them."
A spokesperson for the Department of Defense later confirmed that, under Trump’s direction, additional ‘defensive’ weapons are being dispatched to reinforce Ukraine’s capacity while diplomatic efforts toward a ceasefire continue.
In a notable shift from his earlier rhetoric, Trump also expressed visible frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, describing a recent call as "very disappointing" and declaring that he was "not happy with President Putin at all."
The unusually direct criticism suggests a change in approach, as Trump seeks to project resolve in the face of escalating Russian aggression.
Russian forces yesterday launched a massive ground offensive along the entire front in the Zaporizhzhia region. The offensive appears aimed at breaking through Ukrainian defenses to seize the strategic town of Orikhiv, with the broader objective of advancing toward Kamianske and Komyshuvakha.
Russian forces are also attempting to push toward the Mariupol highway, in a bid to sever key Ukrainian supply lines to Donetsk and consolidate their hold on Ukrainian areas they have already occupied.
Russian offensives this year have been characterized by high casualties suffered for very small gains in territory. Russian forces appear better suited to slow, attritional warfare, rather than fast maneuver warfare.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky characterized his conversation with Trump on Friday as "maximally productive," signaling cautious optimism in Kyiv over the prospect of renewed U.S. support.
Known Unknowns: The impact of U.S. tariffs on international trade & especially the U.S. bond market. Whether the U.S. and Iran will restart nuke talks. Relations of new Syrian government with Israel, international community & ability to maintain stability inside Syria. China’s triggers for military action against Taiwan. U.S. responses to China’s ‘grey zone’ warfare in the South China Sea and north Asia. Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russia’s war of attrition. The potential for the jihadist insurgency in Africa’s Sahel region to consolidate and spread.
The Middle East
Birth pangs in the birth place of civilization
Israel’s relocation plan overshadows ceasefire & Iran talks in Washington
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Donald Trump in Washington on Monday as efforts continued to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, and Iran’s remaining nuclear weapons program remains a hot topic.
Their discussions were overshadowed by a controversial new plan unveiled by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who proposed relocating approximately 600,000 displaced Gazans to a closed “humanitarian city” to be constructed on the ruins of Rafah (next to the Egyptian border).
The plan, presented as a protective measure to isolate civilians from Hamas, directly contradicts recent assurances from the Israeli military leadership that there is no intent to pursue population transfer.
Legal experts and international observers have condemned the proposal as a possible blueprint for ethnic cleansing and a violation of international law.
However, separating civilians from insurgents is a classic counterinsurgency strategy, as described by Mao and used by the British, Americans, Russians, and others from Malaysia to Afghanistan.
Netanyahu described the scheme as voluntary, claiming it would offer shelter, food, and security for civilians, while hinting that neighboring states might be willing to absorb part of the displaced population.
Trump praised Netanyahu’s “vision” and affirmed U.S. support for efforts to assist Gazans in relocating, though he stopped short of naming specific destinations or committing material resources to the endeavor. Outside the White House, protests erupted as demonstrators accused both leaders of endorsing a forced displacement policy under humanitarian pretenses.
The relocation proposal emerged as negotiators worked on a framework for a 60-day ceasefire involving phased Israeli withdrawals, expanded humanitarian access, and hostage exchanges.
A U.S. envoy is expected to travel to Doha to assist with mediation efforts.
Yet the relocation plan risks undermining these talks, as key issues including border control, long-term resettlement, and the future political status of Gaza remain unresolved. Critics argue that the scheme may derail prospects for a durable peace and entrench further resistance within the enclave.
Whether the so-called humanitarian city becomes a stepping stone to stability, a first step in ethnic cleansing, or a trigger for further conflict remains unclear, but what is clear is that Israeli policy has been moving towards this outcome for most of this year, and the White House seems inclined to support it.
Separately, Netanyahu has joined the Pakistanis in writing to the Nobel committee to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Barrack breaks long term U.S. consensus on Hezbollah
At a press conference in Beirut on Monday, U.S. envoy Ambassador Tom Barrack departed from a 27‑year bipartisan policy by suggesting that Hezbollah be recognized as both a political party and a militia, rather than being treated wholly as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO).
“Hezbollah is a political party and it also has a militant aspect to it,” he explained, “Hezbollah needs to see that there is a future for them, that that road is not harnessed just solely against them.”
His comments represent a clear break from successive U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, which have consistently classified Hezbollah in its entirety as an FTO and rejected any distinction between its political and military wings.
Barrack’s remarks coincided with wider U.S. diplomatic efforts in Lebanon.
He was in Beirut to present a six‑page roadmap, earlier outlined on 19 June, to the Lebanese government proposing phased disarmament of Hezbollah by November, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, a halt to airstrikes, reconstruction aid and financial reforms.
Lebanon responded with a seven‑page reply, which Barrack described as “spectacular” and said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with (though copies have not yet been made public). He also noted that U.S. assistance could catalyse change, drawing parallels to Syria’s post‑Assad transition.
The envoy’s dual message, a de facto softening of the FTO designation combined with firm conditions for disarmament, marks a very significant U.S. shift.
While some European governments have long drawn a line between Hezbollah’s political and armed wings, no U.S. administration has formally considered such a distinction since the group was first designated in 1998.
Barrack’s pronouncement, coming amid ongoing Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets following the 27 November ceasefire, introduces uncertainty into Lebanon’s delicate balance.
Acknowledging Hezbollah’s political legitimacy may calm internal tensions and enhance U.S.–Lebanese dialogue, yet critics warn it risks undermining the demand for full disarmament.
Tel Aviv and Washington both insist that any future stability hinges on Hezbollah relinquishing its arsenal, a point at the core of continuing mediation between Israel and Lebanon.
By raising the prospect of a future in which Hezbollah is viewed through a dual political‑military lens, Barrack has opened a new chapter in the diplomatic tug‑of‑war over Lebanon's security and sovereignty.
Note: Barrack also added: “If you don’t want change, it’s no problem. The rest of the region is moving at Mach speed, and you will be left behind.”
U.S. Foreign & Trade Policy
America First
U.S. issues fresh tariffs as deadline looms for trade deals
On Monday, the U.S. administration issued letters warning of new tariffs on a broad set of trading partners, including Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and several Southeast Asian and African nations. The moves follow an extension, to 1 August, of the three‑month suspension of so‑called “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in April.
Under the framework reached with Vietnam earlier this week, U.S. authorities clarified that most Vietnamese exports would face a 20 percent tariff, substantially lower than the originally threatened 46 percent. However, goods trans‑shipped through Vietnam from third countries, particularly from China, will incur a 40 percent levy. In return, American products will enter Vietnam tariff‑free, marking a tentative trade agreement aimed at rebalancing bilateral trade and deterring indirect imports from China.
The letters issued yesterday also notified Japan and South Korea of impending 25 percent tariffs on unspecified goods. Similar notices were sent to Malaysia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Laos and Myanmar, with tariff rates ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Notably, countries aligned with the BRICS group were warned of an extra 10 percent surcharge on top of any existing duties.
These announcements are part of President Donald Trump’s broader strategy to accelerate trade negotiations before the new deadline. Despite the administration’s initial ambition of closing 90 trade deals in as many days, only limited agreements have materialized: so far with the UK, Vietnam and a preliminary framework with China. The July deadline has now been extended amid persistent delays.
Markets responded with caution. U.S. stock indices fell following news of the tariff escalation. The broad sweep of these tariffs, coupled with unclear rules on trans‑shipment and selective enforcement, could disrupt supply chains, raise consumer costs and complicate diplomatic efforts, especially in regions like Southeast Asia.
As the 1 August deadline approaches, the United States is clearly leaning on its tariff leverage to extract concessions. Whether this will yield comprehensive and enforceable trade arrangements (or merely stoke global uncertainty) remains to be seen.
Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief
What happened today:
1138 – Battle of the Standard: Scottish invasion of England repelled near Northallerton. 1497 – Vasco da Gama departs Lisbon on first direct voyage from Europe to India. 1838 – Ottoman–Egyptian War: British fleet arrives in Syria to pressure Muhammad Ali of Egypt. 1853 – Commodore Perry arrives in Japan, initiating U.S.–Japan diplomatic relations. 1889 – Wall Street Journal publishes its first issue. 1937 – Second Sino-Japanese War begins with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. 1969 – U.S. withdraws 25,000 troops from Vietnam in first major drawdown. 2010 – International Criminal Court issues second arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. 2024 – Türkiye hosts emergency NATO summit on Black Sea security.
