Control Threat Global

08/11/2026

Who Will Really Shape the Mecca Alliance?

The Mecca Alliance was signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan on August 7, 2026, in the Saudi city of Mecca. It will establish a permanent secretariat in Saudi Arabia and stipulates that an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all three, similar to NATO’s Article 5.

From its name and signing location to its administrative structure, Saudi Arabia appears to occupy the central position. Riyadh wants not only to reduce its security dependence on the United States but also to become a power capable of shaping the Middle Eastern order. Turkey needs capital, access to defense markets, and a greater regional role. Pakistan needs investment, energy support, defense contracts, and Saudi backing to expand its influence in the Arab world.

The Mecca Alliance will reveal whether Saudi Arabia can shape the alliance around its own interests or merely become the financier that enables Turkey and Pakistan to pursue their own ambitions.

However, being at the center on paper does not necessarily translate into having the greatest influence in practice. NATO operates by consensus, yet the United States remains its most influential member because Washington provides not only funding but also military power, command capabilities, and the ability to protect its allies.

Saudi Arabia has only half of that formula. Riyadh can provide financing, purchase weapons, and bring partners together. But if the alliance’s military capabilities remain largely in the hands of Turkey and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia may become the financier without necessarily setting the goals and rules.

Control Threat | The Political Signals Others Miss

08/07/2026

Why Is Saudi Arabia Still Working with a Force Backed by Iran?

Iran has used its regional proxy network to put pressure on shipping routes in the Red Sea. In response, Saudi Arabia has promoted a Red Sea security coalition that includes the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Sudan's regular military.

What makes the situation unusual is that the SAF is also receiving military assistance from Iran. Meanwhile, its opponent in Sudan's civil war, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has received support from the United Arab Emirates, one of Saudi Arabia's closest regional partners.

Looking at these relationships, many people ask the same question: if the SAF receives support from Iran, why is Saudi Arabia still willing to cooperate with it?

The answer lies in the reality on the ground.

The SAF is Sudan's regular military and controls the country's entire Red Sea coastline, including Port Sudan, the country's most important seaport. By contrast, the RSF controls no part of Sudan's Red Sea coast and therefore has no direct role in Red Sea maritime security.

For Saudi Arabia, protecting Red Sea shipping lanes is the priority. To achieve that objective, Riyadh has little choice but to work with the force that controls Sudan's coastline. At present, that force is the SAF.

The fact that the SAF receives Iranian military assistance does not mean all of its interests are aligned with Tehran. Sudan remains in the middle of a civil war, and the SAF needs weapons to sustain the fight while also having strong incentives to cooperate with Saudi Arabia on Red Sea security.

If Riyadh refused to work with the SAF simply because Iran also supports it, Saudi Arabia would lose influence over the force controlling Sudan's coastline. That would not reduce Iran's influence. Instead, it could give Tehran even greater room to expand it.

This illustrates a broader principle of international politics. States rarely have the luxury of choosing a perfect partner. More often, every available option comes with significant drawbacks. The objective is not to find a flawless ally, but to choose the partner that best advances strategic interests while minimizing risk.

In other words, a partner does not have to be perfect to be worth working with. It only has to be the best available option.


Control Threat | The Political Signals Others Miss

08/05/2026

What happens if Germany bans its largest opposition party?

More than 1,000 German lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and legal experts have signed an open letter urging the federal government and parliament to initiate proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD).

The signatories argue that AfD has violated the core principles of Germany's Basic Law, particularly human dignity and the free democratic order.

AfD is no longer a fringe party. In the most recent federal election, it became the largest opposition party in the Bundestag and continues to enjoy strong support in national opinion polls.

Political movements do not emerge out of nowhere. They are often the result of problems that voters believe the governing parties or the political establishment have failed to address, from immigration, the cost of living, and public security to the feeling that their voices are no longer being heard.

If AfD's rise is rooted in voters' disappointment with the traditional parties, then banning AfD may remove an organization, but it cannot remove that disappointment. If the goal is to weaken a political movement, the underlying conditions that drove millions of people toward it must ultimately be addressed.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/05/2026

Why is India refusing to buy fighter jets from both Russia and the United States?

India's decision not to purchase Russia's Su-57 or the U.S. F-35 is more than a defense procurement choice. It is a strategic decision.

- For Russia, selling the Su-57 to India would help preserve its influence in one of the world's largest defense markets while keeping New Delhi within Russia's defense technology ecosystem.

- For the United States, selling the F-35 is about more than economic gains. It would deepen strategic influence by integrating India more closely into the American defense and technology ecosystem for decades to come.

- India, however, is pursuing a different objective. Instead of choosing between Washington and Moscow, New Delhi is investing in its own defense industrial base through the indigenous fifth-generation fighter program, AMCA.

If successful, India will gain far more than a new fighter aircraft. It will acquire the capability to design, develop, and manufacture critical technologies at home, reduce dependence on foreign powers, and strengthen its strategic autonomy.

Weapons are a direct instrument of power. If a nation can produce them itself, that is always the best option. Otherwise, the ability to shape power ultimately rests with the supplier.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/05/2026

Where Is Israel Really Heading?

"Israel is the second cyber superpower in the world. And now we're going to do the same with artificial intelligence."

"Within the next decade, I want Israel to build its own aircraft. We never know whether the critical platforms we currently receive from abroad could one day be denied to us."

These were two of the most notable messages delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he outlined his vision for the next decade. At first glance, they seem to be about AI and fighter aircraft. Strategically, however, Netanyahu is pursuing a much larger objective.

Israel still relies heavily on U.S. support, particularly in defense. But allies can change with elections, shifting national interests, or geopolitical circumstances. That is why Israel is seeking to reduce its dependence by investing in long-term sources of national power: artificial intelligence and a stronger domestic defense industry.

If this vision becomes reality, Israel would emerge as a nation that is technologically, economically, and militarily self-reliant. Such a transformation would give it far greater freedom to pursue its strategic objectives without being constrained by the decisions of other major powers, especially the United States.

Over the long term, that could elevate Israel from being a major military power to becoming a center of influence capable of shaping the balance of power across the Middle East.

History suggests that regional powers with enduring economic, technological, and military strength tend to expand their influence beyond their own regions. Perhaps this is not merely a ten-year development plan. It may be the foundation for Israel to move toward a higher position in the international order.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/05/2026

How did Israel reduce the number of its enemies?

In his latest interview, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that the Middle East still faces a radical Shiite axis while a radical Sunni axis is also re-emerging.

The key point, however, lies in how he defines the enemy. Netanyahu does not frame the conflict as a confrontation between Israel and Arabs, Muslims, or any particular branch of Islam. Instead, he defines the threat as extremism and terrorism.

This approach helps Israel avoid turning its security challenges into a broad religious conflict. If Israel declared itself in conflict with the entire Muslim world, Arab states would find it far more difficult to cooperate openly. But if the enemy is defined as Iran, its proxies, Hamas, ISIS, and other extremist networks, Israel and many Muslim countries can identify common interests.

Those interests include counterterrorism, protecting governments, preserving regional stability, securing trade routes, and preventing extremist groups from filling power vacuums.

So when Netanyahu says more Muslims are reaching out to Israel, he is sending a broader message: Israel is not building alliances based on religion, but on a shared threat.

It is a pragmatic strategy. Israel separates moderate Muslims from extremist organizations, separates moderate Arabs from anti-Israel movements, and turns shared security concerns into the foundation for intelligence, defense, and diplomatic cooperation.

Netanyahu does not need to persuade Arab countries to support Israel. He only needs to demonstrate that cooperating with Israel brings greater benefits than allowing extremism to continue expanding.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/04/2026

What is behind Trump's claim that "the UK is bankrupt"?

Trump is attacking a model of economic development.

In his view, the UK still possesses one of its greatest strategic assets: North Sea oil and gas. Yet it has deliberately restricted new production in pursuit of its net-zero emissions agenda.

Trump argues that abandoning domestic resources leads to higher energy prices, rising production costs, weaker industrial competitiveness, and greater dependence on external suppliers.

That is why he believes expanding North Sea oil and gas production could create jobs, increase government revenue, strengthen energy security, and boost economic growth.

Behind this debate lie two competing political philosophies.

One prioritizes economic growth, industrial strength, and energy security, even if that means relying on fossil fuels for longer.

The other accepts slower short-term growth in exchange for accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.

If the UK develops its own resources more aggressively, Trump believes it will not only strengthen Britain's economy but also create more opportunities for U.S. investment, technology, and energy cooperation.

From an America First perspective, a wealthier, stronger, and more self-reliant ally is also a better customer, a stronger NATO contributor, and a more valuable strategic partner for the United States.

That is why, by calling Britain "bankrupt," Trump is not simply criticizing the UK. He is promoting a model in which allies maximize their own strengths, creating greater economic and strategic benefits for themselves and for the United States.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/04/2026

The greatest strength of a military alliance is not the number of its members, but their willingness to defend one another.

What Is Happening to "Russia's Version of NATO"?

Created in 2002 on the foundation of the 1992 Collective Security Treaty, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was designed as a Russian-led collective defense alliance and is often described as "Russia's version of NATO."

In recent years, however, the alliance has faced growing challenges.

The most controversial case is Armenia. During the 2021–2023 conflicts with Azerbaijan, Yerevan repeatedly called on the CSTO for assistance, but the alliance did not deploy military forces. Armenia later froze its CSTO membership in early 2024.

Another contradiction involves Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Despite both being CSTO members, the two countries have repeatedly clashed along their shared border, with the alliance unable to resolve the conflict.

Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan all left the alliance at different times. Today, the CSTO has only six members. Russia and Belarus remain its closest allies. Armenia has frozen its membership. Kazakhstan is pursuing a more balanced foreign policy and reducing its dependence on Moscow, while Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan continue to experience recurring border clashes.

The CSTO still exists as an organization, but when one member is left without the protection it expected, two others are fighting each other, and several countries have either left or distanced themselves from Moscow, the credibility of Russia's military alliance inevitably comes into question.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/04/2026

Why are more countries reconsidering nuclear power?

Greece has established an interministerial committee to comprehensively assess the development of nuclear power. This is not a decision to build nuclear plants yet, but the first step toward integrating nuclear energy into its long-term national strategy.

What is noteworthy is that nuclear power is no longer just an energy policy.

- It provides stable baseload electricity, reduces dependence on imported natural gas, and strengthens energy security.

- At the same time, developing a civilian nuclear industry allows a country to accumulate strategic expertise, skilled personnel, and industrial capabilities.

- As a result, many countries with advanced civilian nuclear programs are considered to possess "latent nuclear capability": they are not developing nuclear weapons, but if a political decision were ever made, they would have the technological and industrial foundation to develop them much faster than countries without a civilian nuclear sector.

Japan is a prime example. Although it remains committed to its non-nuclear weapons policy, it is widely regarded as one of the world's leading latent nuclear powers because of its advanced nuclear technology and industrial base.

In an increasingly unstable world, nuclear power is becoming more than just a source of clean energy. It is also a strategic national asset.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

08/04/2026

The ultimate goal is not to stop people from seeking a better life, but to make it possible for them to find one in their own country.

Closing the border is not about stopping poor people. It's about forcing failing states to change.

People will always seek a better life and better opportunities.

But if developed countries continue absorbing migrants, failing states will never have to pay the price for their own failures. Corrupt governments, weak institutions, and failing education systems can survive because dissatisfied citizens always have an escape route.

A well-enforced border reverses that dynamic. When people can no longer leave so easily, pressure returns to where it belongs: their own governments. To keep their citizens, governments must create jobs, fight corruption, improve education, strengthen security, and grow their economies, or face increasing public resistance.

This is also a form of institutional natural selection. Over time, better-governed countries retain their people, while poorly governed ones are forced to reform. As governance improves, migration declines and national borders regain their meaning.

Illegal immigration will never end as long as failing states can continue exporting the consequences of their own failures to other countries.


Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis