Why Trump’s Policies Target Harvard and the Future of Academic Freedom
Harvard University has become a focal point in recent debates over academic freedom in the United States, with critics pointing to the impact of current political leadership on higher education.
Background
America’s universities have historically been regarded as global leaders in research, innovation, and intellectual freedom. Their rise accelerated after 1939, when European academics fleeing Nazi persecution helped shape institutions like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. Over the decades, these universities produced Nobel laureates, advanced scientific discovery, and supported new enterprises that strengthened the U.S. economy.
Current Tensions
In recent years, however, universities have faced political and financial challenges. The Trump administration has restricted discussions on equity, diversity, affirmative action, climate change, vaccine efficacy, and criticism of Israel, labelling many of these areas as “woke.” In 2024, Vice President J.D. Vance declared that “professors are the enemy,” reflecting a growing hostility toward academic institutions.
Columbia University recently agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and settlements in exchange for the restoration of federal research funding. Following this, Harvard has also come under pressure, with the federal government withholding $9 billion in funds and revoking its eligibility to host international students. Lawsuits have been filed, and other universities are closely watching the outcome.
The Role of Academic Freedom
Harvard, despite its shortcomings—including historic ties to political elites and controversial admissions practices—has long upheld its motto, Veritas (truth). The institution has provided a space where uncomfortable ideas could be debated, contributing to advancements in fields ranging from cosmology to the social sciences.
Analysts note that academic freedom remains the key factor distinguishing leading global universities. By contrast, authoritarian governments often restrict such freedoms, considering them obstacles to centralized control. Comparisons have been drawn to institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University in India, which once had a reputation for open discourse but has since faced restrictions.
South Asian Perspective
The situation has also highlighted contrasts with South Asia. In Pakistan, universities founded during the British colonial period never fully adopted the ethos of free inquiry. Post-independence, the quality of institutions declined further as religious and political pressures grew. Today, critics argue that universities function more as controlled spaces than centers of academic freedom, with limited emphasis on intellectual independence.
Outlook
Observers suggest that the fate of Harvard under current U.S. policies could serve as a test case for the resilience of academic freedom. While America’s universities remain internationally prestigious, ongoing restrictions and political battles raise questions about how much of their independent spirit will survive in the years ahead.
Note: The article was written by Pervez Hoodbhoy, a physicist, public intellectual, and member of Convisero – the community of Trebuchet.
Creativity Circles & Studio Immersive: Two Ways to Grow Your Creative Capacity
This fall, the Jewish Studio Project (JSP) is opening new pathways to deepen creativity, spiritual practice, and community connection. Whether you are looking for a consistent, peer-led group to ground your practice or a transformative retreat experience, JSP offers two opportunities designed to nourish both creativity and spirit.
Two Offerings for Creative Growth
Creativity Circles
From November 2025 – June 2026, small peer-led groups of 8–12 people will gather monthly to practice the Jewish Studio Process (JSP) through text study, art-making, and reflection. These circles provide ongoing support, creative nourishment, and community leadership opportunities. Applications are now open to host a circle in your own community.
Studio Immersive
From Monday, November 9 – Saturday, November 13, 2025, Rabbi Adina Allen will lead a five-day retreat at JSP’s Bay Area studio. Participants will explore hands-on art-making, deep learning, and spiritual practices rooted in the Jewish Studio Process. This immersive experience is designed for those seeking personal and professional growth through embodied creativity, Jewish wisdom, and community.
Why It Matters
The Jewish Studio Project envisions a world where everyone is connected to their inherent creativity. Both the Creativity Circles and the Studio Immersive invite participants to engage with art, text, and reflection in ways that strengthen resilience, spark imagination, and build meaningful connections.
Broader Context
According to JSP, both the circles and immersive are part of its broader vision of encouraging people to connect with their inherent creativity. Applications are currently open for both initiatives, and information about participation is available through the organization’s website.
To learn more, visit the Jewish Studio Project.
The Complex Legacy of Srebrenica and Why Today’s Wars Never Seem to End
Candles, silence, and headscarves in Belgrade symbolise the mothers of those killed in the Srebrenica massacres of 30 years ago. Image: AFP via National News
Earlier this month, the world marked the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, one of the darkest chapters of the Balkan wars. The silence of mourning mothers and the flicker of candles in Belgrade remind us that the tears of survivors will never fully dry. Yet, Srebrenica’s legacy stretches far beyond Bosnia and Herzegovina – it raises unsettling questions about how societies confront the past, and why so many of today’s wars never seem to end.
Lessons from a Turbulent History
The Balkan region has long been a crossroads of empire and conflict. From Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman rivalries to the rise and fall of Yugoslavia, history has shaped shifting national boundaries and identities. This volatility underscores a central lesson: the sanctity of borders is a relatively modern concept. Around the world today, some 150 territorial disputes remain unresolved – from the South China Sea to Kashmir, Ukraine, and Palestine.
Diplomacy, Kapila argues, should not always chase final “winner-loser” solutions. Instead, nations may be better served by learning to disagree in peace, rather than igniting conflicts over symbolic land.
Ethnicity, Economy, and Statehood
Srebrenica showed how fragile states can become when ethnic identities are politicised. Leaders in the Balkans inflamed divisions between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosniaks. The rapid international recognition of ethnic states by the European Commission further entrenched fault lines, paving the way for war.
Economic disruption also played a role. Yugoslavia, once relatively stable, disintegrated in the 1980s as prosperity crumbled. The lesson is stark: states rise and fall not only on governance models but also on economic security and inclusive democracy.
Justice and Its Limits
The struggle for accountability in Srebrenica offers another sobering lesson. It took years before international courts formally recognised the genocide, by which time survivors had little more than symbolic consolation. Selective genocide determinations by states and slow-moving international tribunals often deepen divisions rather than heal them.
For Serbia, being branded with genocide has fuelled denial and nationalist resentment. For Bosnia and Herzegovina, it has left deep fractures. And globally, contested narratives around genocide have been weaponised in conflicts from Rwanda to Darfur, Myanmar to Gaza.
The Power – and Danger – of Language
In modern conflicts, bombs and bullets devastate lives, but words can inflict generational wounds. The language of genocide carries immense moral weight, making it a potent political weapon. Both perpetrators and defenders invoke it, often stretching definitions to rally support or delegitimise opponents. This verbal warfare fuels anger, trauma, and denial, ensuring that cycles of conflict endure long after the physical battles end.
A Warning for the Future
As the flowers placed at Srebrenica commemorations wither, their message remains urgent: without universal truths and shared recognition of suffering, there can be no final peace. Selective memory and competing narratives keep wounds open, perpetuating cycles of violence across generations.
For survivors from Bosnia to Gaza, Ukraine to Myanmar, the challenge is not only rebuilding lives but also confronting the narratives that divide. Unless the world learns from Srebrenica – not just to mourn, but to act with inclusive justice – the wars of today may never truly end.
Trusteeship of Strategic Areas: A Roadmap Toward a Palestinian State
A decades-old and nearly forgotten UN resolution may provide a fresh pathway toward resolving one of the world’s most enduring conflicts. Resolution 21 [S/318], ratified on April 2, 1947, designated certain territories as “strategic areas” to be temporarily administered under trusteeship. This framework, once applied to Pacific Islands after World War II, is now being reexamined as a potential model for the creation of a Palestinian state.
A Historical Framework Revisited
The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) was established in 1947 and administered by the United States for nearly half a century. Under UN oversight, the arrangement fostered governance, economic development, and eventual independence for multiple island states. Applying this model to Gaza and the West Bank could create a structured, time-bound transition toward Palestinian statehood.
The Proposal
The plan calls for the United States to act as a temporary administrator of Gaza and the West Bank for a five-year period, under a UN trusteeship mandate. Backed by Arab donors and the European Union, this administration would:
Rehabilitate infrastructure and institutions in Gaza and the West Bank.
Establish democratic, secular, and civil governance frameworks.
Build educational and administrative systems based on constitutional models such as Germany’s Grundgesetz.
Prepare the way for a free, demilitarized, and secure Palestinian state along pre-1967 borders with minor territorial exchanges.
Challenges and Reactions
President Trump’s February 2025 remarks about “owning Gaza” raised skepticism across the Arab world. Yet, if reframed within Resolution 21 [S/318], such proposals could be transformed into a UN-sanctioned, internationally coordinated effort.
Israel’s leadership is expected to resist this model, particularly given the call to dismantle outposts and restrict extremist groups. Still, the proposal envisions negotiated territorial adjustments, allowing Israel to retain large urban blocs while ensuring Palestinians achieve statehood.
Lessons from History
Just as the Marshall Plan rebuilt postwar Europe, a global effort could rebuild Gaza and the West Bank. The TTPI precedent demonstrates how trusteeship can balance temporary external administration with long-term self-determination.
The envisioned Palestinian constitution would enshrine secularism, separation of powers, and individual rights, countering extremist ideologies and fostering stability. Such a framework could not only inspire governance in Palestine but also influence democratic practices in Israel.
A Global Priority
The urgency of this proposal lies in preventing further cycles of war and isolation. With international sanctions looming, Israel risks deeper isolation similar to that once faced by South Africa under apartheid. A UN trusteeship model, led by the U.S. and backed by strategic allies, could avert escalation and create a viable two-state future.
The idea is bold, controversial, and far from guaranteed. Yet, revisiting the “forgotten” Resolution 21 [S/318] offers a structured, historical roadmap to finally establish a Palestinian state—democratic, secure, and peaceful—living side by side with Israel. For a region long plagued by conflict, trusteeship may be the bridge to a just resolution.
Dayenu: Confronting the Climate Crisis with Spirit and Action
Dayenu is a Jewish climate movement dedicated to tackling the climate crisis with both spiritual audacity and bold political action. Rooted in Jewish values, experience, and tradition, Dayenu builds community, nurtures resilience, and empowers people across the United States to work toward a just, livable future for all.
A Movement for Climate, Jobs, and Justice
Through campaigns like WE RISE: Climate, Jobs, and Justice for All, Dayenu mobilizes state and local communities to advance clean energy, strengthen climate resilience, and secure environmental justice. Guided by the Jewish teaching “Ma’alin ba-kodesh v’ayn moridin”—once we rise on a holy path, we do not descend—the organization inspires hope while driving collective action.
Dayenu organizers across New York, California, and beyond are building powerful networks to keep oil and gas buffer zones, strengthen climate policy, and create opportunities for Jewish communities to engage in grassroots leadership.
Spiritual Resourcing and Community Building
Dayenu understands that the climate crisis evokes fear, grief, and uncertainty. To support individuals and communities, it provides spiritual resources such as Jewish music, art, ritual, and climate-focused Torah. These practices help transform anxiety into courage, fostering resilience and motivating communities toward action.
One of its most powerful models for engagement is the Dayenu Circle—small community groups that serve as local hubs for climate activism. These circles empower members to canvass, organize, and take meaningful steps toward environmental justice.
Mobilizing Climate Voters
With more than 400 elections scheduled across the country this year, Dayenu is also working to ensure climate remains a key issue at the polls. The movement mobilizes climate voters at the city, state, and national levels, emphasizing that democratic participation is crucial for shaping a just climate future.
Centering Inclusivity
Dayenu has also created spaces such as the Jews of Color Caucus, which brings together diverse voices to address the immediate and long-term harm caused by the climate crisis. This caucus focuses on resilience, justice, and cultivating supportive community bonds.
Recent Highlights
Rabbi Jennie Rosenn, Dayenu’s founder, was featured on the Los Angeles Times podcast Boiling Point (September 11, 2025).
Emily Koester secured a local victory for the Make Polluters Pay law in Massachusetts by introducing a supporting resolution in Greenfield (September 10, 2025).
Hundreds of Jewish climate activists protested against the Environmental Protection Agency’s rollback of environmental protections under the Trump administration (September 4, 2025).
How to Get Involved
Dayenu offers many ways for individuals to take part:
Join or start a Dayenu Circle in your community.
Attend upcoming gatherings, workshops, and public actions.
Explore Dayenu’s rich library of resources in music, organizing, and climate Torah.
Contribute as a monthly donor to help sustain the movement’s long-term impact.
Dayenu’s mission is clear: the climate crisis is the defining challenge of our time, and it will take all of us to meet it. By blending Jewish spirituality with grassroots activism, Dayenu provides both hope and action, ensuring that communities rise together to build a just and sustainable world.
To learn more or get involved, visit Dayenu.org.
Exploring AI Vulnerabilities in Biotech – Webinar on Red Team AI Simulation
On Wednesday, 10 September 2025 (6:30 PM – 7:45 PM IST), an important academic webinar titled “Red Team AI Simulation: An Adversarial Scenario in AI-Biotech Intersection” will be hosted online. The event is organized by CSI Chennai, IEEE CS Madras, ACM Chennai, and Bioclues, and brings together voices from diverse disciplines to address one of the most urgent questions of our time: how secure are AI systems in sensitive domains like biotechnology?
About the Presentation
AI red teaming is a security practice in which experts simulate real-world attacks on AI systems to identify weaknesses and improve resilience. This webinar will showcase one such red team experiment conducted by students at Sai University, Chennai, who explored how large language models (LLMs) could potentially be manipulated in the context of bioweapon risks.
The experiment, conducted under the guidance of Mr. Tyler Peppel (CEO, Tickr AI; Professor, NYU) and Prof. Sherman Teichman (Founding Director Emeritus, Institute of Global Leadership, Tufts University; Director, The Trebuchet), highlighted vulnerabilities in generative AI systems. The findings showed that models like ChatGPT can be imaginative yet error-prone, persuadable, and exploitable when prompted in disguised or incremental ways.
The project’s insights echo concerns raised by Microsoft Threat Intelligence about “jailbreak” tactics and align with adversarial prompting research by Dr. S. A. Arshinoff and colleagues in Canada. The conclusion was clear: without enforceable ethical guidelines, proactive mitigation, and robust safeguards, AI tools risk being exploited in sensitive domains such as biotechnology and biosecurity.
Student Speakers
The webinar will feature four Sai University students as presenters:
Ms. Hariniy Gunaseelan – 3rd Year BTech (Data Science)
Ms. Danisha Shri – 3rd Year BS (Philosophy & Psychology)
Mr. M. R. Tarun – 3rd Year BTech (CS with Data Science)
Mr. Abhinav Mohan Kumar – 2nd Year BTech (CS with Data Science)
Together, they will share their findings, key learnings, and implications of red teaming AI in the biotech context.
Organizers and Registration
The event is hosted under the leadership of Dr. A Akila (CSI Chennai), Mr. H R Mohan (IEEE CS Madras), Dr. S Koteeswaran (IEEE CS Madras), Dr. P Sakthivel (ACM Chennai), and Dr. Gyaneshwer Chaubey (Bioclues).
Interested participants can register at: https://bit.ly/web-250910-red-team-ai-simulation.
Museums in the Age of AI
Futurespaces has announced a new session for its community events series, stepping in with a timely topic after a schedule change. Josh Goldblum, founder of Bluecadet and Futurespaces, will host Museums in the Age of AI tomorrow, September 4.
Rethinking Museums in a Digital Era
For centuries, museums have been more than repositories of objects. They began as cabinets of curiosity, grew into institutions of memory, and became central to nation-building and cultural heritage. Today, their authority as cultural gatekeepers is being challenged—not only by the digital age but also by artificial intelligence.
In this discussion, Goldblum will explore how museums are adapting to an era of algorithmically curated information. The session will examine questions such as:
What unique role can museums play when knowledge is instantly accessible everywhere?
Can they continue to serve as town squares of cultural discourse?
How should they balance financial sustainability with cultural and social responsibility?
An Invitation to Dialogue
The event will also consider the broader contracts that underpin museums today—economic, social, and philosophical—and how these institutions can remain relevant in a digital-first world. Attendees are encouraged to stay for the roundtable discussion, designed to gather perspectives and spark further dialogue.
About Futurespaces
Futurespaces is a platform dedicated to contemporary experience design, focusing on how design and technology can deepen human connection. Founded by Josh Goldblum, it offers live webinars and in-person tours that provide insight into the creative processes shaping today’s cultural and technological landscapes.
Community members interested in the intersection of technology, culture, and heritage are invited to RSVP and take part in this forward-looking conversation.
Building Bridges of Healing: Oleander Initiative in the UK
This April, the Oleander Trauma Recovery, Resilience and Peace Program traveled from Hiroshima to London, bringing lessons of peace culture to more than 500 mental health professionals, educators, and students. Led by Program Director Kanade Kurozumi and three team members, the initiative showcased how connections forged in Hiroshima can foster resilience and healing across continents.
Six Years of Connection
The program was the culmination of six years of collaboration linking Hiroshima’s peacebuilding community with the UK’s mental health sector. It began in 2019, when Tam Martin Fowles, a trauma recovery specialist from London, attended the Oleander Complexity of Peace program in Hiroshima. Inspired, Tam and her organization Hope in the Heart, CIC launched mental health workshops rooted in the themes she encountered in Japan.
Her work flourished, and in 2024 she returned to Hiroshima with a delegation of British mental health professionals. The following year, the Oleander Initiative reciprocated by sending four peacebuilders to the UK, continuing this cycle of exchange and collaboration.
Sharing Hiroshima’s Peace Culture
The team’s UK journey began at Essex University, where they presented on the connections between Hiroshima’s peace culture, wellbeing, and trauma recovery to more than 100 clinical psychology students. The visit included an origami workshop, allowing students to experience the creative practices tied to resilience.
From there, they engaged 360 students and faculty at Ark Pioneer Academy, presenting the Hiroshima Resilience Project and hosting reflective discussions with teachers. On the same day, they delivered their program The Politics of Empathy to faculty and students at London South Bank University.
Healing Through Art
The final stop was the Battersea Arts Centre, where the team visited the Messages from the HeART exhibition, featuring artwork by individuals with lived experiences of mental health challenges. The Oleander team also led an origami workshop focusing on how art fosters trauma recovery and resilience.
A Living Exchange
This initiative would not have been possible without the creativity and dedication of Kanade and Tam, whose partnership continues to transform peacebuilding into a living exchange across borders. The program reflects how communities benefit when peacebuilders and mental health practitioners come together, sharing lessons of empathy, resilience, and healing.
As Director Ray Matsumiya reflected:
“The Oleander Trauma Recovery, Resilience and Peace Program is an amazing example of how communities benefit when dedicated peacebuilders connect across continents. We look forward to the next evolution of this incredible connection.”
Learn more here: https://oleanderinitiative.org
France’s Nuclear Forces in 2025: Stable Numbers, Active Modernization
A Rafale BF3 practices alert in a protective aircraft shelter at an unknown base (potentially Saint Dizier) with an ASMPA nuclear cruise missile shape attached to its center pylon. (Credit: French Air Force).
The latest Nuclear Notebook from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (July 15, 2025) takes a comprehensive look at France’s deterrent. The headline: numbers are steady, but nearly every component—from missiles and submarines to aircraft and the industrial base—is in motion.
Topline assessment
Stockpile and inventory: Approximately 290 operational warheads are maintained for rapid deployment. A further ~80 retired TN75 warheads are queued for dismantlement, bringing the total inventory to ~370. This level fulfills the 2008 pledge to remain under 300 operational warheads—roughly half the early-1990s peak of about 540.
Readiness: Almost all stockpiled warheads are deployed or can be uploaded at short notice, underscoring an emphasis on prompt availability rather than large reserves.
Doctrine and signaling
“Strictly defensive,” vital interests: France reiterates that use would be considered only in extreme self-defense tied to its “vital interests.” Under President Macron, those interests have been described as having a European dimension, a formulation that has drawn renewed scrutiny since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
No-first-use not adopted: France retains the option of a limited “final warning” strike to reestablish deterrence if needed.
Alliance posture: French nuclear forces remain outside NATO’s integrated command. Paris emphasizes strategic autonomy while increasing diplomatic signaling to European partners about the deterrent’s relevance to collective security.
Sea-based deterrent: SSBNs and M51 evolution
Triomphant-class SSBNs (4 boats): Maintain continuous at-sea deterrence. Three are typically available while one is in major maintenance.
M51 family:
M51.2 with the TNO warhead is now standard on most patrols.
M51.3—featuring a new third stage, longer reach, and a modified TNO-2 reentry vehicle—is scheduled to enter service by the end of 2025, with rollout beginning as submarines cycle through deep overhauls.
Next-gen submarines (SNLE-3G): Steel cutting began in 2024; the first hull is expected to enter service around 2035, with four boats delivered at roughly five-year intervals to about 2050. SNLE-3G will debut with M51.3 and later transition to M51.4.
Air-based leg: Rafale today, hypersonic tomorrow
Current force: Around 40 nuclear-capable Rafale BF3 aircraft in two squadrons at Saint-Dizier, plus a carrier-capable Rafale Marine detachment for the Charles de Gaulle (the only NATO surface vessel configured for nuclear strike). Tanker support has transitioned to the A330 Phénix MRTT fleet.
ASMPA/ASMPA-R: The standoff cruise missile—life-extended as ASMPA-R—remains the nuclear loadout for Rafale. Recent evaluation launches validated the upgrade.
ASN4G hypersonic missile: A new 4th-generation, hypersonic, maneuvering air-to-surface system enters service from 2035, initially on the Rafale F5 standard and later on France’s next-generation fighter.
Basing expansion: The Luxeuil-Saint-Sauveur air base will rejoin the nuclear mission by the mid-2030s, hosting Rafale F5 squadrons and becoming the first base to field ASN4G. This effectively doubles the number of nuclear-capable Rafales and diversifies basing.
Exercises and command system
Operation Poker (with Banco): France runs about 70 FAS exercises annually; Poker—a large-scale nuclear strike rehearsal with Rafale, ASMPA shapes, and tanker support—occurs four times a year. Banco is the nuclear loading drill often preceding Poker.
Authority and control: The President alone authorizes use, with the CEMA executing orders through hardened networks (RAMSES) and last-resort channels (SYDEREC). SSBN connectivity relies on very-low-frequency transmitters, part of a redundant national C3 architecture.
The warhead enterprise
Design and simulation: The CEA/DAM complex underpins warhead design, certification, and life-cycle support via high-performance computing and hydrodynamic/radiographic test facilities (Bruyères-le-Châtel, Valduc/Epure, and CESTA/LMJ).
Dismantlement: Retired TN75s are moving through the dismantlement pipeline at Valduc.
Tritium: France plans to source tritium for warheads from the Civaux civilian reactor site—marking a notable civil-military integration akin to US practice.
Transparency—within limits
Public disclosure: France is among the few nuclear-armed states to publicly quantify its stockpile—a foundation for higher-confidence external estimates.
Constraints: Access to granular data is tempered by restrictive declassification rules and widespread blurring of sensitive sites on public mapping platforms; analysts increasingly rely on alternative commercial imagery sources.
Why it matters
France’s path illustrates a lean, ready, and modern deterrent: relatively small numbers, high availability, and measured but steady upgrades. The coming decade will be defined by two pivots:
M51.3 + SNLE-3G at sea, extending range, survivability, and patrol endurance; and
Rafale F5 + ASN4G in the air, adding hypersonic, maneuvering standoff options and a second nuclear base for resilience.
For Europe, the messaging is clear: while posture and control remain national, Paris is calibrating communications to underscore the deterrent’s relevance to European security—without folding it into NATO’s nuclear planning or adopting no-first-use.
Full source and details:
Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight-Boyle, “French nuclear weapons, 2025,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 81(4), 313–326. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2025.2524251.
Read the article: https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-07/french-nuclear-weapons-2025
Rising Violence in Arab Society and Community Resilience Initiatives
Knesset Committee Testimony
The Abraham Initiatives’ Semi-Annual Monitoring Report for January–June 2025 presented a deeply concerning picture of violence within Arab society in Israel. The report documented 128 Arab citizens killed in the first half of 2025, a number that has since risen to 146. This marks a sharp increase compared to 109 fatalities in the same period of 2024 and 111 in 2023, which was already a peak year.
At a Knesset National Security Committee session, Lama Yassin, Director of the Mixed Cities Initiative at The Abraham Initiatives, warned of an escalation in extremist attacks against Palestinians:
“In recent months, we have witnessed an unprecedented and unacceptable escalation in violence against the Arab population... It reached a new low when Jewish citizens applauded the death of four Arab women in Tamra during the war with Iran.”
She highlighted violent incidents targeting Knesset members, bus drivers, and journalists, as well as hostile online commentary celebrating the suffering of Arab communities. Yassin stressed the urgent need for Israeli leadership to address these fundamental threats to social cohesion.
Strengthening Bedouin Communities through Security Training
Amid these challenges, The Abraham Initiatives’ Safe Communities Initiative is showing promising results. Over 671 graduates (400 women, 271 men) from 23 courses across 15 Bedouin towns have now completed Personal Security Courses.
Impact data reveals significant progress:
Reporting of shooting incidents to police rose from 13% to 90%.
Readiness to take action against violence increased from 30% to 94%.
Understanding of emergency response protocols improved from 14% to 90%.
A campaign promoting security and resilience reached 1.3 million views on social media.
These efforts demonstrate how locally driven initiatives can enhance safety, empower communities, and foster resilience—particularly among women and youth.
Intercommunal Healthcare Forum
The second meeting of the Healthcare Expert Forum, co-hosted by The Abraham Initiatives and the Galilee Society, convened Jewish and Arab professionals to share best practices for maintaining workplace solidarity during crises. Key recommendations included:
Assigning designated personnel to manage relations.
Ensuring strong, consistent leadership messaging.
Establishing protocols to address offensive comments and protect Arab staff.
Creating safe spaces for dialogue.
Managing organizational messaging during public events.
Defending Democratic Representation
In a related development, a Knesset proposal to remove MK Ayman Odeh, leader of the Arab-majority Hadash-Ta’al Party, was defeated. The attempt drew widespread criticism from civil society organizations, who argued it was an unprecedented assault on democratic representation. Mobilization by advocacy groups helped ensure the failure of this measure, safeguarding the political voice of Arab citizens.
The data and testimony presented this month reveal the severity of violence facing Arab citizens, the persistence of extremist attacks, and the urgent need for government accountability. At the same time, the progress achieved through grassroots initiatives such as the Safe Communities program underscores the power of resilience, community-led security, and cross-communal cooperation to drive meaningful change.
Learn more here: https://abrahaminitiatives.org
Our Genocide: B’Tselem’s Urgent Call to Halt the Destruction of Gaza
We share with you an important and deeply troubling new report released this month by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization. The report, titled Our Genocide, documents what the authors conclude is an ongoing genocide committed by Israel against the Palestinian people, particularly in the Gaza Strip, since October 2023.
What the Report Finds
The 86-page document outlines in detail the destruction of Palestinian life across Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and within Israel itself. It draws on eyewitness testimony, field research, humanitarian data, and international law.
Mass Killings & Trauma: By mid-July 2025, more than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza had been killed, with nearly 140,000 wounded. Women, children, and the elderly make up a significant proportion of victims. Life expectancy has collapsed; for men, it has dropped by over 50% since October 2023.
Destruction of Living Conditions: Starvation, collapse of healthcare, destruction of housing, and deliberate targeting of water and electricity infrastructure have created catastrophic conditions. The report notes starvation is being used as a method of warfare, with deaths mounting daily.
Forced Displacement: Millions have been driven from their homes in Gaza and the West Bank. “Safe zones” have been repeatedly bombed, including al-Mawasi, where 90 were killed and 300 injured in one strike.
Psychological & Cultural Assault: Entire generations, particularly children, are suffering extreme trauma. Education, religious sites, family structures, and press freedom have been systematically undermined.
Prison Camps & Torture: Thousands of Palestinians are detained without trial in prisons described as “torture camps.”
Incitement & Dehumanization: The report compiles statements from senior Israeli leaders and soldiers reflecting genocidal intent, where all of Gaza’s population is seen as complicit or disposable.
Genocide as a Process
The report stresses that genocide is not only about mass killings. It is a process — one rooted in decades of apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing, and systemic dehumanization. The Hamas-led attack of 7 October 2023, the report argues, became the triggering event that enabled the Israeli government to escalate from repression to outright destruction.
A Call to Action
B’Tselem, whose name means “in the image [of God],” has for 35 years documented human rights violations in Israel and Palestine. With this report, they call on both Israeli society and the international community to urgently act to stop the genocide, protect Palestinian lives, and prevent its further spread beyond Gaza.
“We all live under a discriminatory apartheid regime that classifies some of us as privileged subjects simply because we are Jewish, and others as undeserving of any protection simply because we are Palestinian. Together, we fight for the right we all have to live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River without discrimination, violent repression and annihilation.” — Our Genocide, B’Tselem
Read the full report here: Our Genocide (B’Tselem, July 2025).
Remembering Awdeh Hathaleen: A Voice for Peace Silenced
We share the deeply painful news that Awdeh Hathaleen, a beloved teacher, community leader, and advocate for nonviolent resistance in Masafer Yatta, has been killed. Awdeh, known for his dedication to peace and his tireless efforts on behalf of his community, was shot dead by a settler outside the Palestinian village of Umm al-Khair.
Just hours before his death, Awdeh sent an urgent message about settlers working behind homes in his village, attempting to cut the main water pipe and establish caravans. His last words underscored his lifelong commitment to protecting his community:
“We need everyone who can make something to act… if they cut the pipe the community here will literally be without any drop of water.”
A Life Cut Short by Violence
Witness accounts detail that settlers arrived with bulldozers, destroying olive trees and injuring residents. During this attack, extremist settler Yinon Levi fired his weapon, killing Awdeh. Levi has previously been sanctioned by the United States for violence against Palestinians but was freed from such restrictions when sanctions were revoked in early 2025.
For years, Awdeh welcomed visitors, including members of Congress and civil society leaders, into his community, showing the daily challenges faced by Palestinians in the South Hebron Hills. His death is both a personal tragedy for those who knew him and a stark symbol of the unchecked settler violence afflicting Palestinian communities.
J Street’s Response
J Street issued a strong statement mourning Awdeh’s death and calling for accountability:
Urging Israel to investigate and bring perpetrators to justice.
Calling on the U.S. government to press Israel to ensure accountability.
Renewing advocacy for the West Bank Violence Prevention Act (H.R.3045), introduced in Congress to codify sanctions against violent settlers and deter further attacks.
Read the full statement here: J Street Statement on Awdeh Hathaleen
A Call to Action
Awdeh’s death highlights the urgent need to confront settler violence and the broader structures that enable it. By supporting legislation like the West Bank Violence Prevention Act and demanding accountability, there is a chance to honor Awdeh’s legacy and protect others from the same fate.
Petitions are circulating to encourage Members of Congress to support the bill. Once signed, participants will receive instructions on how to contact their representatives.
Awdeh Hathaleen will be remembered as a peace-loving leader whose voice called for dignity, justice, and hope. May his memory serve as a blessing—and as a call to action.
Announcing the 2025 FASPE Fellows
FASPE (Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics) has announced the 2025 cohort of Fellows. Since its founding in 2010, FASPE has granted nearly 85 fellowships annually across six professional fields—Business, Clergy & Religious Leadership, Design & Technology, Journalism, Law, and Medicine. The program emphasizes ethical leadership and responsibility, recognizing the impact that professionals hold in shaping society.
Each fellowship convenes in Germany and Poland, where participants engage in rigorous study of professional ethics through historical and contemporary lenses. This approach underscores FASPE’s mission: to explore how influence can be exercised responsibly in professions that profoundly affect civic life.
This year’s Fellows will join a network of more than 900 alumni worldwide who are committed to ethical leadership and to addressing the moral challenges of their respective fields.
Business Fellows
Among those selected are professionals and students from institutions such as Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan, Columbia Business School, Duke Fuqua, and Boston Consulting Group. Their work spans consultancy, global supply chains, and assistive technology.
Clergy & Religious Leadership Fellows
The clergy cohort brings together leaders and emerging voices from across Christian denominations and global institutions including Yale Divinity School, Abilene Christian University, Free University of Berlin, and Santa Barbara’s New Beginnings.
Design & Technology Fellows
This group features professionals from leading technology firms including Google, Microsoft, and Booz Allen Hamilton, alongside scholars from Georgetown, Yale, and UC Berkeley, reflecting the program’s focus on ethical responsibilities in rapidly evolving technological fields.
Journalism Fellows
The journalism cohort includes reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, Voice of America, CBC, and GloboNews, among others. These Fellows are positioned to address the ethical complexities of reporting in today’s polarized information environment.
Law Fellows
Law Fellows come from top institutions and firms including Harvard, Yale, Duke, Georgetown, Wachtell, and courts across North America and Europe. They represent the intersection of jurisprudence, accountability, and ethical governance.
Medical Fellows
The medical cohort includes physicians and researchers from leading universities and hospitals such as Stanford, Mount Sinai, NYU, Brown, and the University of Toronto. Their expertise spans psychiatry, child and adolescent health, and internal medicine.
Looking Ahead
With the selection of the 2025 Fellows, FASPE continues to expand its impact as a global network dedicated to ethical leadership. The program not only honors its origins in the study of the Holocaust but also applies its lessons to contemporary professional challenges.
To explore the full list of 2025 Fellows, their institutions, and areas of focus, visit the official page: FASPE 2025 Fellows.
New Publication Highlights Corruption’s Toll on Libya
A new article by Grace Spalding-Fecher and Chiara-Lou Parriaud, published on June 16, 2025, examines the far-reaching consequences of the Sarkozy-Gaddafi corruption trial. Titled “The Sarkozy-Gaddafi Trial Exposes Corruption’s Devastating Effect on Libyans,” the piece not only scrutinizes the democratic resilience of France but also underscores how high-level corruption has exacerbated instability and human suffering in Libya.
Sarkozy on Trial
The article revisits the corruption case against former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who stands accused of illegally financing his 2007 presidential campaign with millions of euros from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The trial, which has spanned over a decade of investigations, carries serious implications for France’s judiciary and democratic institutions. Prosecutors have demanded a prison sentence, financial penalties, and a political ban should Sarkozy be found guilty, with a verdict expected on September 25.
Impact Beyond France
While French media coverage has largely focused on the trial’s implications for democracy at home, Spalding-Fecher and Parriaud argue that the true cost of this corruption is borne by Libyans. Since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, Libya has endured years of civil war, failed peace processes, and authoritarian practices entrenched by both eastern and western factions. The authors show how Sarkozy’s dealings with Gaddafi not only compromised French democratic norms but also helped entrench repression in Libya.
Technology, Surveillance, and Repression
The article also sheds light on the role of Amesys, a French cybersecurity firm accused of providing surveillance tools to the Gaddafi regime. The spyware was allegedly used to track, detain, and torture Libyan dissidents. This link between French commercial interests and human rights abuses illustrates how corruption in international politics can directly impact civilian lives.
France’s Continued Role
Beyond Sarkozy’s tenure, the authors trace how French leaders have continued to interfere in Libya’s political process. From military support to Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army to backchannel diplomacy undermining U.N.-led peace efforts, France’s policies are portrayed as prioritizing strategic alliances and counterterrorism over democracy and human rights.
Call for Accountability
Ultimately, Spalding-Fecher and Parriaud argue that France must reckon with the consequences of its foreign policy in Libya. They call for stricter accountability, conditioning of commercial and military contracts on human rights standards, and support for Libyan civil society organizations working to build inclusive peace.
The publication is a timely reminder that corruption at the highest political levels has long-lasting, devastating effects far beyond national borders. By placing Libyan voices and experiences at the center of the narrative, the article challenges policymakers and citizens alike to rethink the global costs of corruption.
Read more here: The Sarkozy-Gaddafi Trial Exposes Corruption’s Devastating Effect on Libyans
Israel at a Crossroads
Former Knesset Speaker Avrum Burg has published a critical reflection on Israel’s present and future, raising the difficult question of whether the state can continue to claim moral legitimacy. Writing in his Substack, Burg draws on more than two decades of commentary, recalling his earlier warning that democracy in Israel was “dying on the hilltops of the occupied territories.” He argues that the trajectory of the past half-century, compounded by the events since October 7, has brought the state to a point of existential crisis.
From Democratic Vision to Moral Crisis
Burg contrasts Israel’s early years as a fledgling democracy—marked by fragile peace efforts, welfare programs, and an active civil society—with what he describes as today’s disintegrating social fabric. He contends that the current government has turned Gaza into a humanitarian catastrophe, carried out deliberate policies of displacement, and eroded the ethical foundations on which Israel was built.
Divided Societies
The essay characterizes contemporary Israel as fractured into four distinct communities, held together largely by war:
Ultra-Orthodox communities, accused of prioritizing exemptions and funding while remaining detached from national sacrifice.
National-religious Zionists, whose military service and messianic worldview, Burg argues, fuel a perpetual conflict.
Secular Israelis, described as bearing the state’s economic and military burden but politically weakened and fragmented.
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who, despite ongoing discrimination, have resisted opening another internal front even as Gaza suffers devastation.
A Call for a New Social Contract
To Burg, the question of whether the Israeli project has failed is an attempt to name the gulf between founding ideals and current realities. He writes:
“A state that systematically denies rights to millions, that justifies mass killing as a security strategy, and that elevates Jewish supremacy and inequality to the level of ideology, such a state may no longer claim moral legitimacy. Perhaps the Israel that has severed itself from its founding values and now stands in defiance of the very international norms that brought it into being, has lost the right to exist.”
Rejecting despair or calls for destruction, Burg insists the only way forward is to establish a new covenant of equal citizenship in which Jews and Arabs live together not as enemies, rulers, or ruled, but as partners who commit to “Never Again” for both peoples. Without such a fundamental transformation, he concludes, Israel faces the reality that the project may be “truly over—and perhaps, justly so.”
Read more here: Israel. Is the Game Over?
Eleven Years of Exploring Political Power
On July 24, Michael Poulshock marked eleven years since beginning an inquiry into the nature of political power — a project that started with a simple daydream on a beach in Jamaica. What began as a thought experiment about the power imbalance between small and large nations grew into a long-term exploration, producing daily reflections, thousands of notebook pages, and even a book, Power Structures in International Politics.
Poulshock describes his effort as a personal “science project,” carried forward not for recognition or payment but out of persistent curiosity. He has spent over 10,000 hours sketching equations, testing ideas, and revising assumptions, often only to encounter dead ends. Yet the rare breakthroughs — moments of clarity when solutions present themselves as obvious — have sustained the project over the years.
The work has had no fixed roadmap, branching into questions of cooperation and conflict, simulations of political behavior, and even speculations on interplanetary politics. For Poulshock, curiosity itself has been the driving force, propelling him to continue despite uncertainty about whether the project will ever yield a definitive or useful outcome.
Reflecting on the journey, Poulshock acknowledges the possibility that the project may amount to little more than personal notebooks. Still, he views the ideas that come to him as carrying an obligation to be pursued and shared, no matter how elusive the answers may be.
Read more here: Eleven Years of Being Wrong Most of the Time
Amal-Tikva: Resilience and Updates from the Field
Amal-Tikva continues to adapt to the volatile realities of the region, redirecting resources and supporting peacebuilding organizations with resilience and focus. When the Leading through Trauma retreat was cancelled due to the Israel–Iran war, the budget was reallocated to provide one-on-one psychological support for NGO leaders in partnership with the Headington Institute. This approach reflects the organization’s ability to sustain its mission even in times of upheaval.
Program Highlights
ATLI Emerging Leaders 2025: Sixteen Israeli and Palestinian grassroots and policy leaders have completed ten sessions with experts in peacebuilding and management. The cohort will travel to Belfast later this year for a study tour with ReThinking Conflict, while a reciprocal tour will take place in 2026.
Speakers Bureau: Nine peacebuilders participated in training and mentorship to develop skills in storytelling, audience engagement, and message delivery. The program concluded with a final event where participants presented to donors and peers, reflecting Amal-Tikva’s commitment to elevating peacebuilding voices.
Fieldbuilding360: Fifteen NGOs are currently taking part in the Fieldbuilding360 program. A recent donor panel enabled four organizations to present strategies and refine their theories of change with direct feedback from funders.
Partnership with B8 of Hope: Collaboration with B8 of Hope has focused on refining grant processes, deepening due diligence, and expanding the funding pipeline. The partnership demonstrates how shared values can strengthen the broader peacebuilding field.
Looking Ahead
An ATLI alumni retreat will take place in September in rural Italy, offering leadership and resilience training.
A new strategic planning workbook, developed with Hebrew University’s MA program in non-profit management under Dr. Nancy Strichman, will soon be available as part of Fieldbuilding360.
Amal-Tikva is expanding its team, with two new hires joining in August and September, and is currently recruiting for a Community Manager.
Amal-Tikva’s work illustrates how peacebuilding organizations are responding to a challenging environment with strategy, resilience, and impact. The organization continues to support leaders and NGOs in strengthening civil society engagement while adapting to rapidly changing realities.
Learn more here: https://www.amal-tikva.org
Michael Poulshock on Power Structures
Michael Poulshock, of our community.
How Power Structures Advance IR Theory
Twelve potential upgrades to the theory of international relations
JUL 31
How should we understand international politics? Like any social science, the field of international relations (IR) is a bundle of models that attempt to answer that question. And as in any academic field, there will always be some models that are in tension with each other and don’t quite snap together they way we hope they would. Science is, after all, an ongoing process. But in international relations, there seems to be a distinct sense that the discipline lacks a unifying framework for solving the puzzles that are within its purview to address. Its dominant theories have not been reconciled and there is no consensus on the definition of its most fundamental concept.
As an analogy, imagine that each theory is a shape. Some theorists might see one shape and describe the phenomena of international politics as a rectangle. Another group of scholars might see a different shape and say, “No, it’s a circle.” A third group might be convinced that a triangle is the best explanation. The shapes are a bit hazy, but nonetheless there’s an accumulation of evidence in favor of each one and the debates ensue.
Yet it may be that there’s another perspective from which we can view the situation that offers a more coherent explanation. Perhaps what we’ve actually been looking at are shadows cast by some unexpected three dimensional object, rotated around in different ways. From one angle, the object creates a rectangular shadow; from another, a circular one; and from third, a triangle. From this new vantage point, some of our existing models may simply turn out to be special cases projected down from a higher dimensional idea that is somehow more fundamental.
A 3-dimensional object that casts rectangular, circular and triangular shadows.
Power structure theory is that deeper idea, and in this post I’m going to give you twelve reasons why I believe that it can help us unify international relations theory. For the sake of space, I’m not going to reiterate what power structure theory is; a primer can be found here. The diagram below is illustrative of the basic idea, and I’ll elaborate other key aspects of it as we go along.
A power structure is a system of relationships among political actors with varying levels of strength. More powerful actors are depicted as larger circles. Solid lines indicate cooperative relationships; dashed lines represent conflict. Power structures evolve over time: actors who cooperate get stronger, actors who fight get weaker, and relationships continually change.
Since I’ll be referring to academic concepts, some of my points may seem a bit obscure if you’re a nonspecialist. I’ll do my best to simplify and contextualize them. Conversely, if you’re an IR scholar, you may be unimpressed by my lack of nuance or my inadequate citations to the literature. In the end, it may be that this essay doesn’t quite work for anyone: it may be too technical for general readers and too sloppy for academic ones. What can I say? That’s my niche.
Each of the points below could probably be an essay unto itself, and maybe I’ll expand upon some of them in future posts. For now, my goal is just to show you that power structure theory — which I’ll abbreviate as PST — has the potential to draw together a variety of loose ends in our current understanding of international politics. Here are twelve ways it might do that.
1. PST defines the central, unresolved concept in IR.
As Daniel Drezner wrote a few years ago, “International relations scholars do not agree about much, but they are certain about two facts: power is the defining concept of the discipline, and there is no consensus about what that concept means.”¹ This may at first seem like an astonishing admission and a bit of an embarrassment. However, it can take a long time for very simple things to be understood correctly. Consider physics, where it took two millennia — from Aristotle to Newton — until force and mass were properly defined. Or negative numbers, which required a thousand years before mathematicians fully accepted them. Many ideas that are now taught to elementary school students took centuries to figure out. Political power might be in this category.
We understand power in an experiential, biological way, and perhaps that’s why it’s hard to conceive of it at the appropriate level of abstraction. Power structure theory defines power as “an actor’s ability to affect the amount of power that other actors have.” It’s a sparse and circular definition, and for those reasons it is counterintuitive and controversial. However, it describes phenomena that are at the heart of power politics (see below), and therefore any idiosyncrasies of the definition are justified by the success of its ultimate results. In this way, PST plugs the most glaring hole in international relations theory — its central, unresolved concept.
2. PST describes processes of change in the international system.
PST describes the international system as a power structure — a system of relationships among actors with varying degrees of power. Power structures are not static, and power structure theory is based on assumptions about how these structures change over time. PST therefore provides a descriptive account of the dynamics of international politics.
One process of change is due to the relationships among states (or other actors): cooperation tends to make them stronger, whereas conflict weakens them — and this can be visualized as a flow of power in the network. But actors also change their relationships with each other in reaction to their place in the structure. The dynamics of the system are a feedback loop between these two processes, and result in familiar patterns like hierarchy formation, the balance of power, divide and rule tactics, and defensive alliances. Existing IR models endeavor to establish causal links between various phenomena. However, PST goes further and provides a way to express power struggles in an abstract model that accounts for the time evolution of the system.
3. PST provides a conception of utility that balances absolute and relative gains.
What do actors in a power structure want? They want to accumulate more power in absolute terms, so they can be stronger. But they also care about how much power they have relative to other actors, so they can avoid being dominated. Their satisfaction or utility within a power structure is based on their preference for absolute versus relative gains in power.
How actors strike this balance has a big effect on how they behave. Actors who have a stronger preference for absolute power will be more willing to cooperate for mutual gain, because they are not threatened by the fact that someone else is getting stronger. In contrast, actors who prefer relative gains tend to behave aggressively towards other actors. They are more prone to using violence to reduce the power of rivals to a more manageable level, weakening them to the point where they are submissive and unthreatening.
This conception of utility connects preferences for absolute and relative gains to the distribution of power — that is, to the amount of power that each actor in the system has. It explains the incentives that actors face when confronted with different distributions of power, and therefore it describes the causal effects of those distributions on actor behavior. For example, a powerful actor with a preference for relative gains in a unipolar system is likely to behave one way; a weak actor with a preference for absolute gains is likely to behave differently. Power structure theory elucidates how all of this works.
4. PST unifies neorealism and neoliberalism.
Neorealism and neoliberalism have for decades been the two predominant theories in IR. Neorealism views the international realm primarily as a struggle for power. Neoliberalism emphasizes cooperative interactions among states and the significance of international institutions. In the 1980s, attempts were made to unify these two theories under the framework of game theory and rational choice. However, this much sought-after “neo-neo synthesis” did not come to fruition.
Power structure theory supplies two ingredients necessary for that synthesis, ingredients that were missing in the 1980s. First, it offers a conception of power as dynamic flow (points 1 and 2 above). Second, it accommodates preferences for absolute and relative gains based on the distribution of power (point 3). These components are the missing links that connect complex interdependence (neoliberalism) and concerns for the distribution of power (neorealism) into a deeper framework. By combining these pieces, the phenomena described by neorealism and neoliberalism emerge as special cases of power structure theory.
The full rationale behind this unification requires some explanation, and you can find more details here.
5. PST reconciles structure and agency.
Which has more of an effect on outcomes in the international system: the agents within it or the structure of the system itself? Put another way: To what extent do actors determine the system, as opposed to the system determining them? This friction between structure and agency is another theoretical tension in IR.
In power structure theory, this tension does not exist. The behavior of agents is what forms the structure; and the structure is what agents react to. Thestructure part of a power structure is the relationships among the actors. Each relationship is a stream of transactions, such as commercial transactions between trade partners or military attacks between countries at war. The overall structure is created by the sum total of these complex interactions among the various actors. How they choose to act — that is, how they adjust their existing relationships — is done in reaction to everyone else’s relationships and to the distribution of power. So agents continually create the structure, which in turn alters their incentives to undertake various actions in the future. The tension between structure and agency dissolves away.
6. PST applies to state, intrastate, and transnational actors.
Traditionally, IR theory applied only to states, but it was eventually realized that intrastate and transnational actors were also relevant and needed to be accounted for. Few models in IR apply broadly to state, intrastate, andtransnational actors. However, power structure theory does.
A power structure describes relationships among generic actors, be they countries, institutions, intergovernmental organizations, criminal gangs, city-states, or individuals. Each node in a power structure is a simplification that can often be decomposed into another power structure unto itself — meaning that power structures can be nested within each other. For example, if the countries of the world constitute a power structure with ~195 actors, each of those is also its own self-contained national power structure made up of government agencies, corporations, influential individuals, etc. Power structure theory is a theory about power, and since political power is relevant at various levels of social organization, the theory is generally applicable. One benefit of this generality is that PST helps connect power struggles occurring within states to their external behavior towards other states, and vice versa. Essentially, PST models each nation state “billiard ball” as a collection of smaller billiard balls that follow the same operational principles.
7. PST provides IR with an axiomatic foundation.
Scientific theories, including in the social sciences, should ideally state the assumptions upon which they are based. These assumptions should be simple and clear, and there should be as few of them as necessary. They should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. And they should be capable of describing or explaining a wide variety of phenomena despite their minimalist nature.
Power structure theory provides just such an axiomatic foundation. It is based on a minimal set of principles upon which a variety of other conclusions can be drawn. Some examples of these axioms (stated informally) are: when actors cooperate, they get stronger; when actors fight, they get weaker; actors prefer some combination of absolute and relative power; and actors engage in ongoing interaction. There are a handful of other axioms (which I’m omitting so as not to overly confuse you) that together serve as the starting point for a comprehensive theory. By explicitly stating these assumptions, power structure theory wrings out as much ambiguity as it can from the conclusions it draws. The clearer the inputs, the clearer the outputs.
8. PST is fundamentally quantitative.
In addition to being axiomatic, it’s a bonus when a scientific theory is quantitative in nature. When we can not only say that A causes B, but that A causes B to a specific degree, or at a specific rate, then we have a framework that can output precise answers to precise questions.
The axioms of power structure theory are quantitative in nature. They don’t just say how things change; they can be parameterized to specify how muchthose things change. In fact, the core of power structure theory boils down to three simple mathematical equations. Not only is this intellectually satisfying, but it also enables us to calculate and model the way power structures can change over time by creating computational simulations of this time evolution, and to test whether the models align with reality. It also means that we can formalize phenomena like the balance of power, empire, instability, Graham Allison’s Thucydides Traps, David Lake’s theory of hierarchies, the loss of strength gradient, Lanchester’s laws, polarity, and the multiple logics of anarchy (my apologies to nontechnical readers for this sentence).
This doesn’t mean that we can predict the future. Power structure theory is not predictive per se. But the simulations can help us understand tendencies and likely outcomes in the system, even if they can’t tell us exactly what is going to happen in a given situation. If PST did claim to predict such things, it wouldn’t be believable, because politics is inherently unpredictable.
9. PST gives us a way to rank each state’s position in the system.
Because power structure theory is axiomatic and quantitative, it allows us to come up with novel metrics that help us understand what’s happening in the system. One such metric is called PrinceRank, which is a network centrality measure that takes into account negative links (i.e. destructive relationships). Essentially, it tells us — numerically — how happy each actor is with its place within a given power structure.
This is the same power structure as the one shown above, but with each actor colored on a blue-green spectrum that indicates PrinceRank. Light green represents the most favorable position in the network, whereas dark blue represents the least.
PrinceRank allows us to rank power structures based on an actor’s preferences and as a result it can help us see which actions or “foreign policies” would be most beneficial for that actor to take. This means that it can be used to explore the possible choices that each actor has when they play against each other in a simulated “game” of international politics.
10. PST explains why politics consists of perpetual change.
Political systems at every level — global, national, local — are constantly changing. Some actors rise to power and others fall in the continual turbulence of human events. Power structure theory helps us understand why this turbulence will never end.
Power structures are in perpetual disequilibrium. If they are ever static, they do not remain so for long. Even when the relationships in a power structure remain unchanged, the power levels of the actors fluctuate due to the flow of power across the network. And of course, relationships do not remain static, because there is always someone who wants to improve their position by forming a new alliance or fomenting conflict. Even unequal, hierarchical structures like empires and authoritarian regimes are in perpetual flux. Though these structures are relatively durable and can persist for some time, there are actors within them that nonetheless continually challenge the status quo in order to seek incremental gains in power. In short, power structures help explain why, in politics, change is the only constant.
11. PST helps crystallize what actors construct when they engage in “social construction.”
Constructivism is another major theory of international relations, along with neorealism and neoliberalism. The thrust of it is that the key structures of the international system are socially constructed through shared ideas, norms, identities, and beliefs, rather than being solely determined by material forces.
Power structures are, in part, socially constructed. While they are objectively real, they are so large and complex that no one knows them in their entirety, and hence it is necessary for actors to form mental simplifications. Everyone then acts based upon their subjective understanding, as if it’s a board game night where no one can see the actual board. How these simplified understandings are formed is part of the game of politics: convincing others about who has too much power, who has too little, who’s abusing it, and what should be done with the power at one’s disposal. In other words, significant aspects of those shared ideas, norms, identities, and beliefs can be conceptualized in the vernacular of power structures, because fundamentally they are about some struggle for power.
12. PST provides a launch point for the development of normative theory.
Power structure theory provides a basis for the development of a normative theory of international politics. PST is a descriptive theory. It describes what can and may happen, not what should happen. What should or ought to happen falls into the realm of ethics, and it’s important to try to separate such normative theories from descriptive ones, for clarity’s sake. But normative theories should start by taking the world as it is, and if at the most fundamental level the international system is best represented as a power structure, then normative theories should use PST as a starting point. They should build upon the assumptions of PST and use its conceptual language when developing arguments about how actors in the system ought to act.
Hopefully, I’ve opened your mind to the possibility that power structure theory can tie together a variety of existing ideas in IR by offering a solid foundation upon which they can rest. PST doesn’t necessarily conflict with mainstream theory. To the contrary, I believe that it shows how existing ideas are interconnected via a deeper conceptual substrate — a three dimensional object that has been casting a bunch of familiar theoretical shadows.
There’s a lot more that can be said about each of the arguments above. If you’re interested in learning more, most of these themes are discussed in greater detail in my book, Power Structures in International Politics (2023). Also feel free to message me directly if you feel so inclined.
Drezner, D. (2020). Power and International Relations: a Temporal View. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 29-52.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120969800.
Podcasts by Mukesh Kapila
These extraordinary podcasts are coming to you from Mukesh Kapila:
Thirty years after the Srebrenica genocide, what has been learnt? Especially for our age of endless wars. That is the topic for my last opinion piece.
Also, my new "Fading Causes" podcast is getting established. In the latest Episode, I talk to model Noella Coursaris about the power of loss that drives the passion to make a difference to others. In the earlier episode, I question Major General James Cowan on being good soldiers in bad wars.
You can also access these items via my website. You can contact me HERE. Your suggestions and comments are always welcome.
The complex legacy of Srebrenica and why today's wars never seem to end.
24 July 2025
When there is no universal settled truth, there is no final peace either
Episode 4 Fading Causes Podcast: model Noella Coursaris
29 July 2025
Can personal passion make a lasting difference?
Episode 3 Fading Causes Podcast: Major General James Cowan
22 July 2025
