MS Risk Blog

Assessing the upcoming Moldovan election

• It is likely that current Moldovan administration would win presidential election and EU referendum on 20 October. It is unlikely Russian interference would make significant change on the result of election.
• It is highly likely that Russia and pro-Russian movement would attempt to destabilize Moldova. It is realistically possible that Russian attempt would lead to indirect military conflict within few months.

Moldova, with a small population of 2.5 million, is located between Romania and Ukraine. Its geopolitical position has historically allowed Russian influence to dominate the country, a situation that persisted even after the dissolution of the USSR, of which Moldova was a part. Moldova remains heavily dependent on Russia economically, and Moscow has consistently demonstrated a clear intention to maintain its control over the country.

The separatist region of Transnistria has been supported by Russia, resembling similar situations in both Georgia and Ukraine. In Ukraine, pro-Russian separatists were instrumental in Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the subsequent Donbass War. Similarly, South Ossetian separatists were used to justify Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, leading to South Ossetia’s continued claim as an independent republic within Georgian territory. The lesson for Moldova is clear: Russia has both the intent and the capability to destabilize the country by leveraging the existing pro-Russian population against the current government, a strategy that has been in play ever since Moldova’s pro-Western political parties secured control of the government.

The situation in Transnistria has always posed a security threat to Moldova, but since the onset of the Ukraine war, the separatist region has increasingly served as an entry point for Russia’s hybrid operations. The separatist government has received significant economic and political support from Moscow, which has publicly acknowledged Transnistria as an independent nation. Tensions between the Moldovan administration and Transnistria have escalated in recent months, with the Moldovan government issuing frequent warnings against separatist movements, while Transnistria has expressed its desire to align with Russia. For instance, the Transnistrian parliament recently outlawed the use of the term “Transnistria,” insisting on the use of the Russian name “Pridnestrovie.”

These rising tensions pose a real threat as Moldova approaches its upcoming presidential election and a referendum, both scheduled for October 20, 2024. The referendum will ask Moldovans whether they support constitutional changes that could pave the way for the country’s eventual accession to the European Union. Despite the Moldovan courts banning the activities of pro-Russian oligarch Ilan Shor, authorities have uncovered attempts to corrupt the election process through the illegal use of millions of euros. Given Russia’s long history of interfering in the democratic processes of foreign nations, it is clear that Moscow is employing its well-established tactics to undermine Moldova’s political future.

Recent polls suggest that 55-65% of the population supports the referendum, and it is likely that President Maia Sandu will win the upcoming election. However, Russia continually presents the possibility of an opposite outcome. Currently, around 1,700 Russian troops are stationed in Transnistria, and the economic disconnection from Russia has severely impacted Moldova’s economy, which was already suffering due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its related inflation. The ongoing war in Ukraine has exacerbated this, causing inflation to rise by 40%, while Gazprom has significantly reduced gas supplies to Moldova. Moldovan authorities have also accused Shor and Moscow of orchestrating a complex “mafia-style” voter-buying scheme, attempting to bribe approximately 130,000 Moldovans to vote against the referendum and in favor of pro-Russian candidates. The political and economic tensions are unfavorable for the current administration and are likely to intensify as the election approaches.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has also heightened fear among the Moldovan population. With Russian missiles frequently crossing or landing on Moldovan territory, the possibility of a Russian invasion seems increasingly realistic. The presence of Russian forces in Transnistria further complicates the situation, as any military interference by Russia would severely undermine Moldova’s fragile government. The deteriorating relationship between Russia and the West suggests that Moscow may find it easier to initiate further aggression against its former Soviet republics.

It is possible that the Moldovan population’s understanding of the situation could affect the current overwhelming support for the referendum. For the Sandu administration, winning both the presidential election and the referendum is crucial to consolidating its fragile policy direction. While it is likely that the election results will align with President Sandu’s goals, it is equally likely that Russia will view this as a threat to its influence in Moldova and attempt to destabilize the current government through various means. In conclusion, the upcoming elections will be a pivotal moment for Moldova’s future and for Russia’s regional strategy.

Russia’s Shadow Feet: An overview of the fleet, how they operate, and the threat they pose to Western and Southern Europe

What is Russia’s shadow fleet and how big is it?

According to the UK Government policy paper ‘The ‘Shadow Fleet’: A Call To Action’, Russia’s shadow fleet “comprises ships engaged in illegal operations for the purposes of circumventing sanctions, evading compliance with safety or environmental regulations, avoiding insurance costs or engaging in other illegal activities”.  The Kiev School of Economics highlights that “Russia’s efforts to establish its own shadow fleet… began in the latter half of 2022 [and] continue to date”. Ships in Russia’s shadow fleet regularly engage in illictly smuggling Russian oil. Estimates of the size of Russia’s shadow fleet vary across multiple sources. For example, CNN in March 2023, estimated that the size of the shadow fleet was “at roughly 600 vessels, or about 10% of the global number of large tankers”. More recent publications such as The Spectator’s article ‘The shadow fleet helping Russia to evade sanctions’, published in May 2024, estimates that the fleet has grown by 17% in 2024 and is made up of “787 vessels… equivalent to nearly 14 per cent of the world’s total tanker tonnage”. Academic institutions such as the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) estimated in 2024 that the collection of ships within the fleet was “about 1,400 vessels worldwide”. Whilst estimates on the exact number of ships are obscure and vary between sources, the general consensus is clear: Russia’s shadow fleet’s activities have surged throughout the Russo-Ukraine war, allowing Russia to generate profits for its offensive in Ukraine whilst simultaneously undermining the effects of Western sanctions and posing a direct threat to the security of Western and Southern Europe. The shadow fleet, as noted by CEPA, “may operate in the shadows, but its indisputably there, and its activities are growing”.

Structure of the fleet and methods of operation.

In terms of structure, the shadow fleet can be separated into two different categories: dark fleets and grey fleets. Dark fleets, as defined in a Windward and Vortexa joint report, as ships/vessels/tankers that carry out “clandestine trade of sanctioned commodities, using diverse methods of obfuscating their origins”. According to the report, the dark fleet uses a variety of deceptive shipping practices (DSP’s) “such and ID and location tampering” as well as “the intentional disabling of the automatic identification system” to move wet cargo (oil). Grey Fleets, according to the report, are “a completely new phenomenon evolving from the [Russo-Ukraine) war”. These fleets are defined as “grey” due to the difficulty of determining the legality and sanction compliances of these vessels in a lot of cases. Grey fleet vessels regularly switch flags (known as ‘flag hopping’), making them hard to locate and verify. More generally, Russia’s shadow fleet has been known to operate under the radar by travelling without insurance, forging documents, and painting over the name of the vessels to disguise their true identity. According to Tayo Yousef in his September 2024 publication, ‘U.S Sanctions Are Ineffective: Russia’s Dark and Grey Fleet and its Circumvention of Sanctions’, vessels in Russia’s Shadow Fleet “have been outfitted with state-of-the-art spoofing technology… making the vessels difficult to track”.

Evidence of the evasion of sanctions by Russia’s shadow fleet and its increased activities during the Russo-Ukraine War.

In December 2022, the G7 introduced an oil price cap of a “maximum price of 60 USD [US Dollars] per barrel of crude oil” in an effort to limit Russia’s profit revenues from oil trading whilst simultaneously keeping the global energy market stable.  A recent report by S&P Global Commodity Insights “noted nearly 80% of Russian exports are potentially shipped outside of the G7 oil price cap”. Therefore, “a significant number of [Russian] oil transactions and shipments are… evading sanctions”. By shipping and trading oil above the set G7 price cap, Russia is able to generate enormous profits to help fund its war in Ukraine. A May 2023 Oil Market Report pointed out that “Russian oil supply has proved resilient following its invasion of Ukraine with crude exports re-routed to new markets as deep price discounts attract traders as well as refiners willing to risk handling the barrels”. In the same report, the International Energy Agency noted that Russia was still exporting 8.3 million oil barrels per day, which it described as “a post invasion high”. The report also estimated that because of this, Russian revenue “increased by $1.7 billion to $15 billion” due to the exportation of crude oil.

Data from Windward and Vortexa reveals that since the start of the Russo-Ukraine war, “the grey fleet has carried around 1.4 million crude oil barrels per day… each month post-invasion, which translates to a 111 percent increase when compared to pre-invasion levels. Similarly, the same comparison for the dark fleet is estimated at a smaller, but nevertheless considerable, 19 percent”.  Both companies also pointed out that in the Gray Fleet, there was a “69% increase” in the monthly average of oil product barrels exported per day. For the dark fleet, “there was a 22 percent increase in the monthly average of BPD [barrels per day]… after the start of the war”. The statistics and data extracted from Windward and Vortexa shows that Russia’s shadow fleet has seen an increase in its activities since the start of the Russo-Ukraine War. Additionally, evidence from S&P Global shows that Russia is using its shadow fleet to actively evade sanctions imposed on it by the G7 and the West. As of September 2024, a total of 74 vessels have from Russia’s shadow fleet have been sanctioned by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Given that Russia’s shadow fleet is has seen an increase in the scope of its activities during the Russo-Ukraine war and has been proven to be evading sanctions, going forward, more needs to be done by the West to target Russia’s shadow fleet.

What threats does Russia’s shadow fleet pose to Western and Southern Europe?

The fleet poses significant threats to Western and Southern Europe. For example, according to the UK government, the fleet “poses serious maritime security and environmental risks” as many of the vessels in within the fleet are “old and unsafe”.  The fleets use of DSP’s also “flouts international maritime standards and increases the likelihood of catastrophic incidents”. Tayo Yousef adds weight to this argument, noting that, “suspected Dark Fleet takers have been involved in a barrage of collisions, fires and spoils, and in the case of a major incident will mean massive environmental consequences”. The fleet also posed a major security threat to Western and Southern Europe, as by evading sanctions, Russia is actively undermining Western polices. The fleet’s activities enable Russia to pursue and influence relationships with countries who are not bounded to uphold US or Western policies, whilst keeping a steady stream of income that it can use to support its offensive in Ukraine. Moreover, considering that the shadow fleets vessel’s insurance “do not cover sanctions invasions, Western countries might not have any choice but foot the clean-up bills that accrue as a result of a major accident”. This highlights that Russia’s shadow fleet also has potential financial risks and consequences for the West should any maritime environmental accidents occur either now or in the future.

What methods should the West use to deal with Russia’s shadow fleet in the near future?

As outlined in the previous section above, the fleet poses environmental, financial and security risks to Western and Southern Europe. So, how should the West tackle these issues? Going forward, the West must employ a multipronged approach to deal with the threats of the shadow fleet., and should consider these following recommendations:

1. The West and her allies should establish a joint Maritime Police Taskforce/Agency that caters to Western interests and “monitors the activities of entities suspected of being in cahoots with the Russian state”.
2. The West and her allies should “jointly develop a high-resolution satellite surveillance technology and program capable of monitoring maritime activities to a high degree of precision”.
3. Create a “real-time monitoring system that can track vessel movements, identify unauthorized ship-to-ship transfers, and detect spoofing techniques used to mask vessel locations”.
4. Collaborate with allied nations by using artificial intelligence (AI) to collect and analyse substantial amounts of information, including “maritime data… AIS signals, satellite imagery, shipping manifests and historical shipping patterns”. The use of AI could potentially make tracking Russia’s shadow fleet (and their dark/grey fleets) a potentially easier task.
5. Use AI to “develop algorithms capable of detecting anomalies in vessel behaviour, such as sudden changes in routes, disabling of AIS transponders, or irregularities in ship-to-ship transfers”.
6. Use machine leaning models and programs to greatly improve the accuracy of verifying and identifying suspicious vessels and their illicit activities.
7. Further develop partnerships with maritime, surveillance and cyber security companies to create “innovative solutions for tracking and verifying vessel movements”.
8. Look into “the use of blockchain-based platforms [and technology] for maintaining transparent and tamper-proof records of maritime transactions, including ship registrations, cargo movements, and insurance costs”.
9. Create joint task forces for coordinating responses to sanction evasion activities that occur across borders and assist in continuously monitoring the effectiveness of Western sanctions.
10. Place “stricter regulations on maratime insurance providers to prevent them from providing vessels engaged in sanctions evasion”.
11. Share more intelligence and data with international partners and organisations to improve the effectiveness of efforts to enforce sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet.
12. Sanction a larger number of vessels within Russia’s shadow fleet as only 74 vessels have been sanctioned by the United Kingdom, United States and European Union as of September 2024.
13. Immediately readjust and significantly lower the G7 price cap to “tighten the choke on the Kremlin’s revenue” from the shadow fleet.
14. Regularly conduct assessments of existing maritime technology “to identify areas for improvement and innovation”.
15. Continuously “adapt and refine strategies based on lessons learned and emerging threats in the evolving landscape of sanctions evasion”.

Iran’s Economic Instability and Sanctions  

Key Judgments:

• It is highly likely that the increasing sanctions against Iran will result in it deepening its relationships with other hostile nations such as Russia and China, leading to an emerging economic and military axis that challenges Western interests. (High confidence).

• Over the short to medium term, Iran’s economic isolation will likely lead to greater regional instability, with potential long-term impacts on both regional power balances as well as international security. (Moderate confidence).

In a significant escalation of its military cooperation with Russia, Iran has reportedly delivered a shipment of over 200 Fatah-360 short-range ballistic missiles to Moscow. This move, intended to bolster Russia’s depleting missile stockpiles as a result of its ongoing conflict in Ukraine, has resulted in immediate responses from Western powers. As a result, the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom have imposed a fresh round of sanctions on Tehran.

These sanctions are aimed at disrupting Iran’s military and defence sectors, whilst also tightening restrictions on Iran’s financial institutions. The new sanctions come on top of an already extensive sanctions regime, which has severely restricted Iran’s ability to engage in international trade, access global financial markets, and export its energy resources. This latest round of sanctions will further isolate Iran, cutting off critical supply chains and increasing the pressure on its economy.

The sanctions imposed on Iran over the last two decades have been extensive, targeting nearly all sectors of the Iranian economy, from energy and finance to military and technology. The key sanctions include:

UN and EU Sanctions: Since 2006, the UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions targeting Iran’s nuclear program, freezing the assets of key Iranian individuals and entities. The European Union has followed suit, imposing a comprehensive embargo on arms sales, freezing assets of individuals linked to Iran’s nuclear activities, and restricting oil imports from Iran.

US Sanctions: The US has led the charge in imposing economic sanctions on Iran. These have included restrictions on Iran’s banking system (particularly its ability to access the SWIFT international payment system), its oil exports, and its access to foreign currency reserves. Sanctions have also targeted individuals and entities tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and missile development programs.

Post-JCPOA Sanctions: Although the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provided temporary sanctions relief in 2015, the US withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 led to the reimposition of sanctions, especially targeting Iran’s oil sector and foreign trade. The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign further tightened these sanctions, bringing Iran’s economy to its knees in 2019.

The impact of these sanctions has crippled Iran’s economy, with inflation skyrocketing, the value of the Iranian rial plummeting, and unemployment remaining consistently high. Iran’s GDP has shrunk by more than 10% since the reimposition of US sanctions, and the country’s oil exports have fallen from over 2 million barrels per day in 2017 to less than 500,000 barrels per day in 2023. The recent sanctions imposed in response to the missile shipment to Russia are expected to deepen this economic crisis further.

With Iran facing increasing isolation from the West, it is highly likely that it will seek to deepen its economic, military, and political ties with other hostile powers, particularly Russia and China.

The military cooperation between Iran and Russia, which has expanded significantly since 2022, is driven by mutual strategic interests. Russia’s need for military equipment in its conflict with Ukraine has made Iran a key supplier of drones, munitions, and now missiles. In return, Iran has benefited from Russian military technology transfers and geopolitical support, particularly in Syria. The sanctions are likely to further deepen this relationship, with Moscow and Tehran forming a more robust alliance that challenges Western influence in the Middle East and Eurasia.

China, as Iran’s largest trading partner, has also been instrumental in helping Tehran circumvent sanctions. The two countries signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement in 2021, which includes significant Chinese investment in Iranian infrastructure and energy projects. As Iran’s access to Western markets becomes increasingly restricted, it will likely seek to increase its economic reliance on China, including expanding oil exports to Chinese markets in spite of Western sanctions.

Together, Russia and China are providing Iran with the ability withstand the economic pressures from Western sanctions. This emerging partnership between the three nations represents a significant challenge to the West, both economically and militarily.

In the short term, the new sanctions will likely result in increased domestic unrest in Iran. Already facing widespread protests over inflation, corruption, and political repression, the Iranian regime will be forced to dedicate resources toward managing internal dissent. This unrest could spill over into the broader region, with Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon potentially escalating their activities in response to Tehran’s increasing isolation.

Over the medium-to-long term, Iran’s economic struggles are likely to drive more aggressive foreign policy actions. As Iran grows closer to Russia and China, it may increase its support for proxy groups across the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. This would lead to heightened tensions in the Middle East as Iran seeks to counterbalance its economic losses with military influence, as well as drain the resources of Western powers enforcing the sanctions.

To conclude, the recent shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia and the subsequent fresh sanctions are likely to deepen Iran’s economic crisis, further isolating Tehran from the international community.  In response, Iran is highly likely to deepen its relationships with hostile nations such as Russia and China, leading to an emerging economic and military axis that challenges Western interests. Over the short to medium term, Iran’s economic isolation will likely lead to greater regional instability, with potential long-term impacts on both regional power balances as well as international security.

Continuous Pursuit of Stability in the Middle East: New Diplomatic Efforts for a Ceasefire

The Middle East’s complex situation remains uncertain, with its origins profoundly rooted in the Palestinian conflict. Despite continuous diplomatic interventions and negotiations, the region has yet to achieve lasting peace. Ten months into the conflict, mediators continue to facilitate discussion and secure a ceasefire deal.

The conflict’s impacts extend beyond Gaza and Israel. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria have had incidents with rocket exchanges and airstrikes aggravating regional instability. Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthis have increased tensions by attacking maritime lines, raising worries about a wider Middle Eastern conflict.

In August, a renewed diplomatic effort was led by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, aiming to host ceasefire talks in Cairo. US President Joe Biden, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani have urged both sides to resume urgent discussions to address outstanding issues and implement a deal without further delay. Key figures, including CIA director Bill Burns, Mossad chief David Barnea, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Jassim Al Thani, and Egyptian intelligence head Abbas Kamel, convened on Thursday 15^th August, to discuss the proposal. The US-backed plan aims to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and secure the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Recently, Hamas has called on the United States to exert real pressure on Israel to achieve a Gaza cease-fire agreement, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggests that 90 percent is agreed upon in the proposal meant to bridge the gap between the warring parties.

In addition to Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S., other actors like Iran, Hezbollah, are playing significant roles in either escalating or mediating the conflict. Iran’s influence, notably through Hezbollah and other proxies, continues to complicate ceasefire efforts, as seen with tensions on the Israeli Lebanese border and Iranian threats following key assassinations. Iran’s internal divisions between its president and Supreme Leader regarding responses to Israel further complicated its diplomatic strategy​.

Recent diplomatic efforts have focused on exerting pressure on Iran to curb its influence and refrain from military retaliation, while simultaneously leveraging diplomatic channels to engage with groups like Hamas. The United States, alongside Qatar and Egypt, continues to push for hostage releases and humanitarian access in Gaza. However, ongoing military responses from both sides make the path to a durable ceasefire elusive.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front in early September, protests erupted across several Israeli cities, with critics directing blame towards Prime Minister Netanyahu for the hostages’ deaths. Critics argue that Netanyahu’s refusal to make the necessary concessions has hindered progress toward a cease-fire deal, further intensifying the pressure on his government to reach an agreement.

The urgency to reach a lasting agreement cannot be overstated. This prolonged struggle has claimed countless lives, leaving a devastating impact on families and communities, particularly the most vulnerable members such as children. These talks should not only focus on achieving an immediate ceasefire but also address long-term peace efforts and the necessary support required to rebuild infrastructure in the affected areas. Additionally, the involvement of other regional powers like Lebanon and Iran has compounded the situation’s complexity. Their participation has contributed to escalating tensions and threatens to broaden the conflict beyond the primary stakeholders.

As the humanitarian crisis worsens, and the conflict’s ramifications extend beyond the immediate region, the need for a lasted agreement through diplomacy and constructive communication is more crucial than ever. Expanding the scope of these discussions and addressing post-conflict challenges is critical to securing long-term peace.

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Escalation and Regional Implications  

 Key Judgments:

• It is highly likely that Iran is enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels (90%), significantly increasing the risk of military conflict with Israel. (High confidence)
• It is unlikely that ongoing diplomatic efforts to revive the JCPOA will succeed in the near term, given the current levels of conflict between Iran and Western powers. (Moderate confidence)
• The potential for a nuclear-armed Iran would almost certainly trigger a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States seeking to develop or acquire their own nuclear capabilities. (High confidence)

Recent reports indicate that Iran has made significant strides in its nuclear program, enriching uranium to levels close to 90%, the threshold for weapons-grade material. This development marks a clear escalation in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and is seen as a direct challenge to the international community, particularly Israel. Despite continued diplomatic efforts by Western powers, Iran appears to be leveraging its nuclear advancements to strengthen its position in any future negotiations.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has faced increasing difficulties in verifying the full scope of Iran’s nuclear activities. Tehran has restricted access to key sites and provided limited cooperation to inspectors. This lack of transparency has heightened concerns about the potential for Iran to rapidly achieve nuclear weapon capability, should it choose to do so. Iran’s actions have drawn sharp responses from regional actors, particularly Israel, which views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that they will take all necessary measures to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including military options.

The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have expressed deep concern over the implications of a nuclear-capable Iran. Both countries have significantly increased their defence budgets, focusing on advanced missile defence systems and air force capabilities. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has hinted at pursuing its own nuclear program if Iran’s advancements are not curtailed, raising the likelihood of a regional nuclear arms race.

In the broader geopolitical context, the United States has maintained a dual approach of pursuing diplomatic engagement while simultaneously enforcing economic sanctions. However, the efficacy of these sanctions is increasingly in question, as Iran continues to advance its nuclear program despite the economic pressure. This is no doubt in part due to the relations between Iran and Russia, which has been developing recently due to sales of military equipment as a result of both nations being in conflicts. The Biden administration has also reinforced its military presence in the Persian Gulf, signalling its readiness to respond to any further provocations from Iran. European nations, traditionally seen as mediators in the Iran nuclear talks, have grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress. There is growing support within the European Union for reimposing UN sanctions that were lifted under the JCPOA, a move that would further isolate Iran but might also push Tehran closer to full nuclear breakout.

The escalation of Iran’s nuclear program is likely to have profound implications for regional security. A nuclear-armed Iran would almost certainly alter the balance of power in the Middle East, prompting neighbouring countries to seek their own deterrent capabilities. The likelihood of military conflict has also increased. Israel’s policy of pre-emptive strikes, combined with its intelligence and operational capabilities, suggests that it may act unilaterally to prevent Iran from reaching nuclear weapons capability. This is evidenced by their already aggressive strategy on Hamas and Hezbollah, with a possibility of even further escalation in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen in order to challenge all Iranian proxies in the region. Such a conflict could quickly escalate and potentially lead to a broader regional war.

To conclude, the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program represents a significant escalation in regional tensions and poses a critical threat to global security. As diplomatic efforts falter, the risk of military conflict grows, with potentially devastating consequences for the Middle East and beyond. The situation warrants close monitoring as it develops, with attention to both the regional power dynamics and the broader strategic implications for international security.