Persistent geopolitical instability surrounding the Strait of Hormuz has renewed the debate about Indo-Pacific energy security and the need to diversify supply sources. However, diversification alone may not eliminate strategic vulnerability, even with alternative suppliers beyond the Gulf for the Indo-Pacific region, because the challenge lies not only in where energy is sourced but also in the maritime networks through which it travels. 

Recent warnings from the Australian Food and Grocery Council highlight how geopolitical instability in the Middle East is already contributing to broader cost pressures across Australia’s supply chains, especially through increasing fuel and logistics costs, as an example of a region at the heart of the Indo-Pacific. 

The Indo-Pacific’s capacity to decrease its reliance on the Strait of Hormuz is limited not by geography but by a broader network of contested maritime chokepoints influenced by proxy conflicts, especially the Bab el-Mandeb corridor connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. In the event of a disruption in Hormuz, states such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand could theoretically turn to alternative suppliers in the Americas, Africa, or the Atlantic basin. 

However, diversifying suppliers does not necessarily reduce risk. Many of these alternative supply chains still rely on the same vulnerable maritime routes, exposing them to similar transportation and security dangers. For example, Bab Al-Mandeb (Red Sea gateway) continues to face significant disruptions from Yemen-based Houthi attacks. Meanwhile, Somali pirates have become more active due to the current regional crisis involving Iran, which raises risk premiums and causes delays in the Gulf of Aden. 

As a result, proxy warfare, rather than a formal state blockade, may also limit Indo-Pacific states’ ability to rely on alternative supplies. For example, non-state actors and proxy forces (especially in Yemen), along with regional instability, can disrupt the straits without owning them. Under these conditions, proxies can exert strategic influence over maritime corridors without officially controlling them. 

This indicates a shift in the international order where effective control of maritime corridors no longer requires sovereign ownership; disruption capability alone can achieve similar strategic results. Meanwhile, strategic geography links Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb together; disruption in one can increase pressure on the other. 

Proxy maritime actors like Yemen-based Houthis disrupt the Red Sea, while Somali piracy networks remain a persistent risk that could increase costs and uncertainty for shipping transiting the Gulf of Aden. As a result, energy security diversification in the Indo-Pacific region is limited not by a lack of alternative suppliers but by the concentration of global maritime energy flows at politically contested chokepoints. Therefore, these contested chokepoints are truly a security dilemma for the Indo-Pacific’s states. 

The growing capacity of proxy actors and non-state groups to disrupt these corridors transforms maritime geography into a web of vulnerabilities, undermining the effectiveness of traditional diversification strategies. Therefore, the Indo-Pacific’s energy security strategy must consider proxy-driven disruptions within maritime chokepoint networks, rather than relying solely on supplier diversification as a resilience measure. 

To address this risk, the Australian Defense Force has participated in coalition-based maritime security operations in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. However, its role has remained limited to multilateral frameworks rather than unilateral action. The escalating instability linked to Iran-related regional tensions and the widening insecurity from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa may increasingly pressure Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand to reassess their strategic posture toward key maritime chokepoints, including the scope, depth, capacity, and autonomy of their future engagement. 

This is especially significant as Iran continues to violate the current ceasefire with the U.S. and is eyeing Bab el-Mandeb, the only chokepoint after Hormuz that connects Asia, the Middle East, and Europe with the purpose of inflicting damage on the global economy and achieve a more robust position in its negotiations with Washington. 

Unlike Australia and Thailand, countries like Japan and South Korea are highly vulnerable to these threats because they are consistently among the top liquid natural gas and crude oil importers worldwide. This has led Seoul and Tokyo to sign a strategic agreement to strengthen energy cooperation despite longstanding historical disputes. 

A collective security action may be necessary if Indo-Pacific countries are to ensure energy security and strengthen domestic resilience amid rising geopolitical instability and the growing prevalence of regionally based asymmetric warfare. State and non-state actors increasingly employ coercion, sabotage, proxy forces, and physical attacks against critical supply lines to undermine political stability and disrupt economic activity. Because global and regional energy markets, maritime trade routes, and supply chains are highly interconnected, disruptions in or around a single country can cascade across the broader region. Consequently, Indo-Pacific nations have a shared interest in strengthening collective maritime security. By working together to deter threats, reduce vulnerabilities, and secure access to vital energy resources, regional states can enhance their ability to withstand external shocks and preserve the economic and social stability upon which long-term resilience depends. 

Shad Sherko is an independent journalist and security analyst specializing in Middle Eastern defense policy, regional proxy dynamics, and cross-border insurgencies. His work focuses on contemporary security threats across the Middle East and beyond. The views of the author are his own. 

Proxy Wars Threaten Energy Security in the Indo-Pacific Amid Regional Turmoil in The Middle East was originally published on Global Security Review.

The Indo-Pacific is entering a period of acute strategic imbalance. China’s rapid military modernization across nuclear, conventional, cyber, and space domains has outpaced the ability of regional powers to respond through traditional force buildup alone. While governments often default to expanding conventional capabilities with more ships, missiles, aircraft, and bases, this approach is slow, expensive, and increasingly insufficient against a peer competitor with both scale and nuclear backing. By contrast, forming an Indo-Pacific nuclear alliance offers a faster, more credible way to close the deterrence gap. 

Crucially, this challenge is not just about China. The region faces a multi-nuclear threat environment that includes an increasingly capable North Korea and a resurgent Russia, willing to use nuclear and conventional signaling to shield conventional aggression. The cumulative effect of these actors compresses decision-making time and raises the stakes of deterrence failure. At its core, the argument is about time, credibility, and strategic effect. 

The Time Problem: Conventional Forces Are Slow to Build 

Modern conventional military capability is not something that can be generated quickly. Building advanced submarines, fifth-generation aircraft, integrated air and missile defense systems, or long-range strike capabilities takes years—often decades. For example. Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines under Pillar I will not deliver operational capability until the late 2030s or early 2040s. As a stopgap. rotational deployments and being considered in the interim. However, these do not fully close the capability gap. 

Similarly, scaling up missile production, hardening bases, and integrating joint command systems across the region require sustained industrial mobilization. Western defense industries, particularly in the United States, are already under strain from commitments in Europe and the Middle East. Expanding production lines for precision munitions or advanced systems is constrained by supply chains, workforce shortages, and political processes. 

In short, conventional rearmament is a long game. The strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific, however, is deteriorating on a much shorter time scale. 

A Multi-Nuclear Threat Environment 

Focusing solely on China understates the scale of the challenge. The Indo-Pacific is increasingly shaped by three distinct nuclear pressures: 

• China is expanding and diversifying its nuclear arsenal at a pace not seen in decades, while integrating it more closely with conventional operations. 
• North Korea continues to refine its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States and regional allies. Kim Jong Un has also signaled a lower threshold for potential nuclear use in a crisis. 
• Russia, while geographically more distant, remains an Indo-Pacific actor through its Far East presence and strategic alignment with China. Its behavior during the war in Ukraine under the shadow of nuclear threats demonstrates how nuclear coercion can enable prolonged conventional conflict. 

This layered nuclear environment complicates deterrence. It is no longer about balancing a single adversary, but managing overlapping deterrence relationships, where escalation in one theater can have cascading effects in another. 

The Deterrence Gap: Nuclear-Backed Coercion 

China’s growing nuclear arsenal fundamentally alters the deterrence equation. While conventional forces can impose costs, they cannot fully offset the coercive power of nuclear weapons. Beijing can leverage its nuclear capabilities to deter external intervention in a regional conflict, particularly over Taiwan, while using conventional forces to achieve fait accompli. North Korea adds a different kind of instability. It has a smaller but less predictable nuclear force, with a demonstrated willingness to engage in brinkmanship. Meanwhile, Russia’s nuclear posture reinforces a broader norm, that nuclear weapons can be used to shield aggression and shape adversary behavior via threats of use. 

This creates a deterrence asymmetry: regional states may possess capable conventional forces, but without nuclear backing, their ability to deter escalation is limited. The United States provides extended nuclear deterrence, but questions about credibility, response timelines, and escalation risks persist, especially as adversaries develop capabilities to target bases in the United States and nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. 

The Speed Advantage of a Nuclear Alliance 

A nuclear alliance can be established far more rapidly than building conventional parity. Unlike ships or aircraft, nuclear deterrence is not primarily about quantity. Instead, it is about credibility, survivability, and signaling. 

Consider NATO. Its nuclear sharing arrangements allows non-nuclear members to participate in nuclear planning, host nuclear weapons, and integrate delivery systems without developing their own arsenals. This framework was established quickly during the Cold War and endured for decades as a cornerstone of deterrence. 

An Indo-Pacific equivalent could replicate key elements of such an arrangement: 

• Forward deployment or rotational presence of U.S. nuclear-capable assets 
• Nuclear-sharing arrangements with trusted allies such as Japan, South Korea, and potentially Australia 
• Integrated nuclear-planning mechanisms to ensure regional input into deterrence strategy 
• Hardened and distributed basing to enhance survivability 

These steps do not require decades of industrial buildup. They rely on political decisions, alliance coordination, and doctrinal integration. These are areas where progress can be made over years, not decades. 

Credibility Through Integration 

Deterrence is about perception. Adversaries must believe that the costs of aggression will outweigh the benefits. A nuclear alliance enhances credibility in several ways. 

First, it raises the stakes of conflict. If multiple states are integrated into a nuclear deterrence framework, any aggression risks broader escalation. This complicates an adversary’s planning and reduces the likelihood of limited, opportunistic actions. 

Second, it distributes risk and responsibility. Extended deterrence is more credible when allies are actively involved in nuclear planning and posture. This reduces doubts about whether the United States would act alone in a crisis. 

Third, it signals resolve and unity. Formalizing nuclear cooperation sends a clear message, that the region is prepared to escalate, if necessary, rather than relying solely on conventional responses that may be insufficient. 

Cost and Efficiency 

Conventional rearmament is not only slow, but it is extraordinarily expensive. Building fleets of advanced platforms, sustaining them, and integrating them into joint operations imposes massive fiscal burdens. 

A nuclear alliance, by contrast, leverages existing capabilities. The United States already possesses a robust nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. The marginal cost of extending deterrence through alliance structures is significantly lower than building new conventional forces from scratch. 

For middle powers like Australia, Japan, and South Korea, this is particularly important. Attempting to match China’s conventional military growth is economically unsustainable, let alone simultaneously accounting for North Korean and Russian contingencies. A nuclear alliance provides a cost-effective way to achieve strategic balance across these multiple threats. 

Addressing Political and Normative Challenges 

Of course, forming a nuclear alliance in the Indo-Pacific is not without challenges. Non-proliferation norms, domestic political sensitivities, and regional perceptions all complicate the issue. Countries like Japan have strong anti-nuclear culture which is shaped by history. Australia has long positioned itself as a supporter of non-proliferation. Any move toward nuclear sharing or hosting would require careful political management and public communication. 

However, these constraints are not insurmountable. NATO demonstrates that nuclear sharing can coexist with non-proliferation commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework. The key is transparency, adherence to legal obligations, and a clear defensive rationale. Moreover, the strategic environment is changing. As the combined pressures from China, North Korea, and Russia intensify, the political calculus around deterrence may shift accordingly. 

Complement, Not Replacement 

A nuclear alliance is not a substitute for conventional forces. Rather, it is a force multiplier. Conventional capabilities remain essential for day-to-day operations, crisis management, and limited conflicts. 

However, without credible nuclear backing, conventional forces risk being outmatched in scenarios where nuclear-armed adversaries control escalation. The most effective approach is a layered deterrence strategy: 

• Nuclear deterrence to prevent large-scale war and coercion 
• Conventional forces to deny and punish aggression 
• Resilience measures to ensure continuity under attack 

A nuclear alliance strengthens the top layer of this structure, enabling the others to function more effectively across multiple threat vectors. 

Conclusion: Speed Matters in a Multi-Threat Era 

The Indo-Pacific does not have the luxury of time or the simplicity of a single adversary. Conventional rearmament, while necessary, cannot close the deterrence gap quickly enough to match the pace of strategic change driven by China, North Korea, and Russia. 

An Indo-Pacific nuclear alliance offers a faster path to credible deterrence. By leveraging existing capabilities, enhancing integration, and signaling resolve, it can stabilize the regional balance in the near term, while stalling for longer-term conventional investments to mature.  

The choice is not between nuclear and conventional approaches, but between acting quickly or falling behind. In a rapidly shifting, multi-nuclear strategic environment, speed is not just an advantage. It is a necessity. 

Natalie Treloar is the Australian Company Director of Alpha-India Consultancy, a Senior Fellow at the Indo-Pacific Studies Center (IPSC), a Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS), and a member of the Open Nuclear Network. Views expressed are the author’s own.

An Indo-Pacific Nuclear Alliance Closes the Deterrence Gap Faster than Conventional was originally published on Global Security Review.

Artificial intelligence is quietly redrawing the front lines of national security, and the United States’ Defense Industrial Base (DIB) now sits in the crosshairs of a new style of conflict. What once looked like routine cyber incidents now appears as a persistent campaign that fuses digital intrusion, supply chain manipulation, and targeted information operations into a single pressure system aimed at the factories, laboratories, and logistics networks that keep American forces armed and ready.

When most Americans imagine national defense, they focus on the uniformed force and the platforms that dominate headlines. Behind that visible edge of power stands a sprawling, largely private ecosystem of designers, manufacturers, software firms, logistics providers, depots, and research institutions that convert national intent into fielded combat capability. Federal regulation describes this DIB as the combined government and private sector industrial complex that can research, develop, produce, and sustain weapon systems and their components at the scale required for military operations.

That chain is far more diverse than the marquee names on major defense contracts. It includes niche machine shops, regional logistics firms, university laboratories, software providers, and government facilities that share technical data and workflow information through a constant flow of digital exchanges. Design files, bills of material, maintenance records, and operational telemetry form the nervous system of this industrial organism. When the system is healthy, the nation can surge production and sustain readiness under stress. When it is strained, deterrence becomes much harder to demonstrate in a crisis.

This industrial nervous system is absorbing AI at high speed, often with limited guardrails. Across the DIB, machine learning supports predictive maintenance, defect detection, demand forecasting, scheduling, and supply chain visibility. Corporate leadership often has only a surface-level understanding of how thinking machines can erode corporate identity, trust, and reputation quietly, yet catastrophically.

For the strategist, this adaptation expands the terrain adversaries can probe. Industry surveys in the World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 report show that executives see AI as the primary driver of change in cybersecurity and regard AI-related vulnerabilities as the fastest-growing category of cyber risk. Organizations recognize that their attack surface is expanding as AI tools move into sensitive workflows, yet governance practices and security controls often lag deployment.

Hybrid campaigns against the DIB rarely announce themselves through spectacular outages. Security officials describe a patient pattern that begins with access and aims for endurance rather than immediate disruption. Once inside a network or supplier ecosystem, adversary teams map production rhythms, supplier dependencies, identity systems, and critical decision points where even modest delays can ripple across schedules and inventories. AI has become a force multiplier

for this reconnaissance, mining engineering files, and communications at machine speed and surfacing patterns that would take human analysts far longer to identify.

The contest is unfolding below the threshold of open conflict. Strategic competitors apply pressure through cyber intrusion, intellectual property theft, data manipulation, counterfeit insertion, and narrative operations designed to erode confidence in the U.S. capacity to arm itself and its allies. Hybrid pressure often manifests as subtle slowdown, rising cost, and creeping doubt rather than overt sabotage.

The stakes for deterrence are significant. Modern deterrence depends not only on visible platforms and war plans but also on an adversary’s belief that the United States can sustain forces and generate combat power at speed. If competitors conclude that AI-enabled systems in the DIB are brittle or easily manipulated, the credibility of deterrence weakens. The 2026 National Defense Strategy emphasizes strengthening the industrial base as a pillar of national power, tying cyber resilience directly to the ability to deter and wage war.

Pentagon planners increasingly describe cyber activity against the DIB as a persistent campaign environment. Adversaries can pursue national security effects through intrusions into private networks and business processes that support critical programs.

The technical attack surface is broad because the DIB operates as a tightly coupled system. Engineering teams collaborate across companies, moving design data through shared tools and platforms. Components flow through multiple tiers of suppliers before the final assembly. A single compromised vendor can offer adversaries access to multiple programs. Hybrid campaigns exploit these seams.

The effect of these operations extends beyond physical outcomes. Manipulated or stolen data can become material for influence narratives that frame U.S. production as unreliable or compromised. Production delays caused by cyber incidents can be amplified to sow doubt among allies about American capacity.

Adversary teams also benefit from repetition. They have treated the DIB as a learning environment, refining tradecraft through continuous operations. Hybrid coercion in this context is deliberate and calibrated, remaining below the threshold that would trigger a national response while still generating uncertainty and doubt.

Emerging evidence suggests that agentic AI systems are beginning to automate portions of this intrusion lifecycle. Automated chains reduce the cost of probing many suppliers and narrow the window for defenders to respond. For smaller firms with limited security resources, the pressure can quickly become unmanageable.

Security experts argue that defending against such campaigns will require disciplined governance and architecture. Pre-deployment AI security assessment and continuous validation must become standard practice, covering model selection, data provenance, access control, logging, and periodic reevaluation.

Architectural choices will also play a critical role. Zero trust principles and micro segmentation can reduce the impact of intrusions by limiting movement across networks. For DIB operators, this means treating segmentation and strong identity controls as the default architecture.

The industrial context around these cyber efforts is already volatile. The aerospace and defense sector is managing supply chain disruptions and resource constraints while trying to scale production. This environment amplifies the effectiveness of cyber sabotage and influence operations because attacks land in systems that are already stressed.

The strategic logic behind adversary focus on the DIB is clear. By degrading confidence and throughput, competitors can undercut deterrence without open conflict. When intrusions are contained and production continues under pressure, the calculus of hybrid aggression shifts.

Hybrid warfare against the DIB aims to bend trust in the systems that generate combat power. If those trust systems are distorted through advanced technologies and coordinated information operations, the result is slower decisions, higher costs, delayed output, and a quieter form of coercion.

Mr. Greg Sharpe is a Fellow and the director of Communications and Marketing for the National Institute for Deterrence Studies and the Managing Design Editor for the Global Security Review. Greg has over 35 years of military, federal civilian, and defense contractor experience in the fields of database development, digital marketing & analytics, technology use case exploration and assessment, and as a USAF doctrine outreach and engagement analyst. The views of the author are his own.

Quiet Warfare: Bending Data and Perceptions in the Defense Industrial Base was originally published on Global Security Review.

For more than half a century, U.S.–Russian nuclear arms control has served as a central mechanism for managing strategic competition. Beginning with the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I), successive agreements institutionalized transparency, predictability, and mutual restraint. New START, which entered into force in 2011, represents the culmination of this bilateral architecture. Its limits on deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems, combined with an intrusive verification regime, helped sustain stability even as geopolitical relations deteriorated.

However, Russia’s suspension of participation in 2023 and the treaty’s expiration in 2026 mark a significant turning point. The breakdown of the broader arms control framework—evident in the demise of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, and the Open Skies Treaty in 2020—suggests a structural shift in the valuation of negotiated restraint. Assessing the prospects for post–New START arms control, it is important to consider these developments within both the historical context of bilateral relations and the shifting dynamics of current great power competition.

Academic debates on arms control offer a helpful context for understanding the current impasse. Traditional arms‑control theory, rooted in rationalist models, views treaty agreements as tools for reducing uncertainty, preventing arms races, and stabilizing deterrence. From this perspective, verification mechanisms and numerical limits mitigate the security dilemma by reducing incentives for worst‑case planning. While other scholars emphasize the role of domestic politics, bureaucratic interests, and leadership perceptions. Arms control agreements often reflect internal political coalitions, institutional preferences, and the ideological orientation of decision makers. The current U.S.-Russian environment, which is characterized by mutual suspicion and nationalist rhetoric complicates the formation of pro-arms control coalitions. Moreover, constructivist analyses highlight the normative dimension of arms control, arguing that treaties shape expectations, legitimize restraint, and embed cooperative practices. The erosion of these norms over the past decade has contributed to a broader delegitimization of negotiated limits.

These theoretical perspectives underscore that the challenges facing post–New START arms control are not merely technical but deeply embedded in political and normative contexts. The war in Ukraine has fundamentally reshaped U.S.-Russian relations. Moscow’s framing of the conflict as a confrontation with the West, combined with U.S. and allied NATO support for Ukraine, has created a political environment in which formal negotiations are viewed as strategically risky or politically unacceptable.

The U.S. seeks to address Russia’s large arsenal of non‑strategic nuclear weapons and its development of novel systems such as nuclear-powered cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. Russia, in turn, prioritizes constraints on U.S. missile defenses and long-range conventional strike capabilities. These asymmetries complicate the search for mutually acceptable trade-offs. Furthermore, verification has long been a cornerstone of bilateral arms control. Russia’s suspension of inspections and data exchanges under New START has undermined transparency and raised questions about the feasibility of future verification regimes. Designing agreements that satisfy both sides’ security concerns will be a central challenge.

The U.S. increasingly argues that future arms control must account for China’s expanding nuclear arsenal. Russia rejects trilateral frameworks, viewing them as attempts to dilute U.S.–Russian parity. Thus far, China shows little interest in formal arms control negotiations. This triangular dynamic introduces new complexities absent from earlier bilateral negotiations.

Despite the hostile political environment, arms control still matters. The strategic reasons for arms control include specific factors that deserve attention from states. Agreements reduce incentives for preemption and miscalculation, which can increase crisis stability. Data exchanges and inspections improve transparency by reducing uncertainty and reliance on worst-case assumptions. Arms races can impose significant economic burdens, even for the U.S.’ trillion-dollar defense budget and Russia’s constrained economy. Finally, U.S.–Russian cooperation reinforces the legitimacy of the global nonproliferation regime. These lasting incentives suggest that both states have structural reasons to pursue at least minimal engagement.

So, what are the pathways for Post–New START arms control? Political commitments to maintain New START limits, even without a formal treaty, could involve both sides making parallel political statements to uphold New START’s numerical limits. While these have no legal force, such commitments could help prevent rapid nuclear arsenal expansion and maintain stability and predictability.

Other paths could include more Issue‑Specific or Modular Agreements. Rather than pursuing a new comprehensive treaty, negotiators could focus on discrete issues, such as notifications of major strategic exercises, transparency measures for new strategic systems, and agreements to avoid dangerous military incidents. These modular arrangements could serve as building blocks for more ambitious frameworks. Next, revitalizing crisis‑management mechanisms by reestablishing military-to-military communication channels could reduce the risk of inadvertent escalation. Such mechanisms do not require treaty-level negotiations and can function even amid broader political tensions. Finally, promote multilateral and norm-building initiatives such as broader dialogues involving China, NATO allies, and other nuclear-armed states to help shape norms around transparency and risk reduction. Multilateral workshops, data exchange initiatives, or voluntary reporting mechanisms may be more practical than formal treaties.

The expiration of New START marks a critical turning point in the history of U.S.–Russian nuclear arms control. The structural, political, and technological challenges facing a successor agreement are formidable, and a new comprehensive treaty is unlikely in the near term. Yet the logic of arms control, rooted in the need to manage existential risks, remains important. Incremental, issue-specific, and politically binding measures offer a pragmatic path forward, preserving essential elements of strategic stability until conditions allow for more ambitious negotiations. The future of arms control will depend not only on geopolitical developments but also on policymakers’ ability to adapt traditional frameworks to a more complex, multipolar nuclear landscape. Without some form of negotiated restraint, the world risks entering an era of unconstrained nuclear competition for the first time in over half a century.

Stephen J. Cimbala is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Penn State Brandywine and the author of numerous works on nuclear deterrence, arms control, and military strategy. He is a senior fellow at NIDS and a recent contributor to the Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies edited by Dr. Alexander Hill (Routledge: 2025). The views of the author are his own.

Beyond New START: Prospects for U.S.–Russian Nuclear Arms Control was originally published on Global Security Review.