Good morning,

This is the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief.

This week, the Munich Security Conference dominated the news cycle due to imminent Ukraine peace negotiations and Europe’s weak role in NATO.

Some highlights from the MSC will be the bulk of this brief, but let’s review some key updates from the weekend.

Reporting Period: 13-17 February 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

U.S. Intelligence Warns Israel Likely To Strike Iranian Nuclear Facilities In 2025

Summary
Media outlets report that the U.S. intelligence community warned Biden and Trump that Israel would likely attempt to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025. At the same time, Iranian personnel have fully withdrawn from Syria and Saudi Arabia is seeking to mediate denuclearization talks between Washington and Tehran.

Findings

• Israeli Strikes: On 13 February, it was reported that U.S. intelligence agencies warned both Biden and Trump that Israel would likely attempt to strike Iranian nuclear facilities sometime in 2025.
  It is uncertain how Trump’s plans for Gaza and denuclearization with Iran impact this option, but Israel seems willing to let Trump attempt to reach a diplomatic solution first.

• Saudi Arabian Mediation: On 16 February, CNN reported that Saudi Arabia is open to mediating a new nuclear deal between Iran and the United States. The Saudis grow concerned that Iran is recklessly pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and that such an achievement would bring war to the region. The Saudi crown prince stated in November 2024 that relations with Iran were at an all-time high.

• Abandoned Bases: On 15 February, BBC reported that Iran had abandoned its bases in Syria, ending more than a decade of military operations there. Iran “deployed military advisers, mobilised foreign militias, and invested heavily in Syria’s war,” meaning the withdrawal indicates not only a failure in Syria and beyond but a need to refocus on defending Iranian soil.

Why This Matters
The situation in the Middle East remains extremely tense despite a lull in hostilities between Israel, Iran, and Iran’s terrorist proxies. Israel has mostly defeated its proxy adversaries and destroyed Iran’s strategic defenses, so with support from the Trump administration, it is looking to carry out more regional-level strategy. For Israel, this means finding a way to address the Iran threat once and for all.

For now, Israel seems intent on letting Trump’s teamwork toward a diplomatic solution. Iran has stated a willingness to hold a diplomatic dialogue, but speeches in Iranian media by the Supreme Leader suggest Tehran either does not take denuclearization seriously or that it has no intention of reaching an amicable deal with the U.S. and Israel.

What is equally interesting is Saudi Arabia’s role. Saudia Arabia and Iran, who have been enemies for decades, expanded their relations when Israel expanded its military operations beyond Gaza. Now, the Saudis are looking to mediate as a means of avoiding regional conflict and gaining favor with Trump’s administration.

However, there are no indications that Trump’s team (which is likely to be led by Steve Witkoff) will reach a deal. If this is the case, the United States may support Israel and conduct joint strikes on Iranian facilities. Trump has previously committed to a “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran and has not taken the use of force off the table.

Sources: CNN, WSJ, The Jerusalem Post, BBC, CNN

Russia, U.S. To Meet In Saudi Arabia For First Peace Negotiations Without Ukraine, EU

Summary
On 15 February it was reported that American and Russian officials will meet in Saudi Arabia to conduct preliminary Ukraine peace negotiations. European and Ukrainian officials were not invited to the initial talks, a point that dominated the dialogue at the Munich Security Conference this week.

Findings

• Saudi Arabia Meeting: On 15 February, it was announced that American and Russian diplomats would meet in Saudi Arabia this week to begin preliminary peace negotiations. As of 15 February, President Zelenskyy and Ukrainian representatives had not been invited to attend the talks. No European representatives have been invited.

• Trump’s Negotiating Team: On 12 February, President Trump identified his preliminary peace negotiation team.

  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio

  • CIA Director John Ratcliffe

  • National Security Advisor Michael Waltz

  • Ambassador and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff

• Ukraine and EU Exclusion: It is uncertain why Ukraine and the EU have not been invited to send representatives to negotiations. In an open dialogue during the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia General Keith Kellogg stated that just because representatives are not in the room does it mean their interests or plans are not coordinated and represented.
  The European Council issued a statement, stating that there can be no legitimate, lasting peace without Ukraine and the EU being present for negotiations. President Zelenskyy has also called for the creation of an “Army of Europe” due to concerns that the United States may abandon Europe.

Why This Matters
This announcement caused a stir on social media and news outlets. European and Ukrainian officials are outraged at their exclusion from talks with Russia and are suggesting these developments indicate Trump’s inevitable withdrawal of the U.S. from NATO and, by extension, providing security for Europe.

This topic also dominated the dialogue and debates at the Munich Security Conference and the NATO meeting this past week. There are significantly diverging viewpoints on this. For example, the NATO Secretary General feels that European leaders are overreacting and should provide clear goals and desires for negotiations before asking for a seat at the table. Likewise, he stated that Europe should focus on developing its own security guarantees through higher defense spending and investment — alluding to the fact that when the war in Ukraine ends the global security environment will not be stable.

Additionally, the U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia offered some clarity on the American position going into negotiations. He stated that European and Ukrainian interests have been noted, considered, and applied. He also stated that Russia will have to offer territorial concessions and that the U.S. and NATO will need to find a way to enforce actions against Russia if talks are to succeed in the future.

To me, this indicates a desire by the Trump administration to swiftly end the conflict, reestablish spheres of influence in Europe, and establish regional foreign policy norms — all of which are being done to ensure a peace that can outlast Putin’s lifespan and, hopefully, deter Russia from deeper integration with multipolar powers like China, North Korea, Iran or organizations like BRICS.

I recommend you read my coverage of the MSC below for more details.

Sources: Al Jazeera, BBC, European Council, YouTube, BBC

Democrats Suggest Government Shutdown To Counter Trump’s Momentum

Summary
Democrats in the Senate are calling for a government shutdown as a method of countering Trump’s executive orders, tariff threats, and government auditing. The government has yet to pass a funding bill, legislation which was introduced under the Biden administration.

Findings

• Government Shutdown as Leverage: Democrats in Congress are considering using the risk of a federal shutdown to counter President Trump’s policies.

• Funding Deadline: A government funding bill must pass by mid-March to prevent a shutdown.

• Democratic Divide: Some Democrats support the shutdown threat as a way to push back against Trump, while others worry about the consequences, such as unpaid federal workers.

• Republican Narrow Majority: Despite GOP control, their small margins require some Democratic support due to Senate filibuster rules.

• Partisan Tensions: House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries have clashed over the negotiations.

• Strategic Risks: Democrats hope to block Trump’s efforts to scale back federal programs, but past shutdowns suggest political risks for both sides.

Why This Matters
Democrats threatening to usher in a government shutdown to “slow down” Trump is important for a few reasons.

First, they show that the DNC remains disjointed following Trump’s election victory and that despite some Republican idleness in Congress, Democrats are not able to craft any substantial policies or countermeasures to Trump’s executive order-heavy agenda.

Second, it shows a lasting political divide in U.S. politics despite the first initial weeks of Trump’s presidency overwhelmingly favoring American interests. This is not to say there are not already mistakes or glaring issues (e.g. the intended Gaza occupation), only that the Democrat leadership remains disconnected from American policy interests and public sentiments.

Finally, it highlights the continued laziness and ineffectiveness of Congress. The government has yet to pass a funding bill for this FY despite the budgetary legislation being introduced before the 2024 election. If Republicans expect to ride with Trump’s momentum and legislate in accordance with their goals, and if Democrats expect to resist Trump and recapture a voter base, then shutting down the government is not a viable decision for either party.

Sources: CNN, The Guardian

Historic Munich Security Conference Concludes

Summary
On 16 February, the Munich Security Conference concluded. The conference was dominated by discussions on Ukraine, Russia, and potential negotiations. I will highlight some things that stuck out.

Note: This is not a comprehensive summary of the MSC.

Findings

• U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia: In a 40-minute Q/A with various representatives, U.S. Envoy Keith Kellogg offered clarity on the logic and reasoning behind Trump’s approach to peace negotiations:

  • Ukrainian and European interests are being considered and presented regardless of whether they attend negotiations.

  • U.S. demands include Russia making territorial concessions, indicating Washington could look to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

  • The Western world wants new sanctions, but Kellogg thinks we need to actually enforce them (especially the “Shadow Fleet”) to break Russia’s “economic back.”

  • Despite their manpower and economy being stretched thin, Russia is willing to extoll significant costs to win in Ukraine, which Kyiv cannot sustain.

  • The U.S. will continue to back NATO and Europe, but members need to invest more in their own defense and take security more seriously to avoid similar crises in the future.

  • “This goes back on you, the European environment.” Kellogg alluded to Europe’s hesitance to make threats to adversaries and stick to them, indicating that U.S. threats should be taken seriously and that Europeans need to adopt a more proactive, aggressive role.

• Vice President Vance: Vance delivered impassioned and accusatory remarks to an audience of diplomats, journalists, and military officials. Vance made the case that certain trademarks of Western culture and values, such as free speech, faith, economics, and staunch security have been absent across the EU and U.S. (to some extent).
  I recommend you read through some of the highlights:

• Germany: Chancellor Olaf Scholz rejects negotiations without EU and Ukrainian representation and stated “There will only be peace if Ukraine’s sovereignty is secured,” alluding to Kyiv maintaining territory and gaining security guarantees.
  Germany will host national snap elections on 23 February which will establish a new government and chancellorship.

• NATO Secretary General Rutte: Rutte has taken a middle-of-the-road stance on Ukraine. Rutte supports greater defense spending by NATO member states, but also told European leaders to “stop complaining” about being sidelined.
  Rutte supports continued aid for Ukraine and detests the public dialogue regarding negotiations, believing it undermines the interests of Ukraine and the West.
  Rutte said he thinks there will be a positive outcome from U.S.-led negotiations due to the global security environment, stating the U.S. is rightly shifting its focus to China and North Korea.

• President Zelenskyy: During the Munich Security Conference, Zelenskyy confirmed that he and his team had not received an invitation to any discussions or negotiations with Russia and the U.S.
  In an interview with Meet The Press, he stated Russia is preparing to deploy 150,000 troops to Belarus for actions against Kyiv or NATO. He also stated “I will never accept any decisions between the U.S. and Russia about Ukraine. Never.”

• Trilateral Joint Statement: On 15 February, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea issued a joint statement that addresses strategy cooperation:

  • Increased trilateral security cooperation in defiance of “attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion” by adversaries in the region (i.e. North Korea and China).

  • Addressing the growing risks associated with North Korea, specifically nuclearization, cyber warfare, and military cooperation with Russia.

  • Enhancing economic integration, specifically regarding energy, natural resources trade, supply chains, and emerging technologies.

• Emergency Ukraine Summit: Some European leaders, notably from France, the UK, Ukraine, and Germany, will hold an emergency Ukraine Summit in Paris today, 17 February. The officials will discuss being locked out of negotiations and how Europe can take a greater role in NATO.

• China: China has stated it supports the U.S. and Russia in reaching a lasting peace agreement regarding Ukraine. As for the U.S. saying its strategic shift is moving to China and away from Europe, China Foreign Minister Wang Yi — and a Global Times fluff piece — stated that the U.S. and China “must not come into conflict.”
  Yi urged for greater “win-win” cooperation and collaboration of global challenges.

Why This Matters
As I mentioned before, the MSC dominated conventional and unconventional media all weekend. It is hard to comment broadly on its significance, but I want to highlight some things outright:

1. I think it is a mistake to exclude Ukraine from peace negotiations, even if only for formal reasons. I understand that Zelenskyy has national interests that require him to minimize Ukraine’s losses. However, this reality will only complicate (if not capitulate) talks. That being said, Ukraine should have a seat at the table for the sake of formality so that whatever terms are reached can be said to be mutual and binding.
   To this end, Kellogg made a good point: We are only talking about talks. To what degree any “progress” or agreements can be made, we have to wait and see.
   I am torn about whether Europe should have a seat at the table given how disjointed EU politics is, and how vastly different the national interests are across the continent. However, I do agree with Rutte and American officials that Europe should begin focusing on guaranteeing its own security; that 30+ years of European talk have yielded no greater deterrence, and that the U.S. has shouldered all burdens.

2. I think it is foolish politicking by Europeans to suggest the U.S. will abandon NATO under Trump’s presidency. The alliance has guaranteed relative peace on the continent for nearly a century. Yugoslavia and Ukraine (which have only been taken seriously now) are the exceptions.
   There is simply no strategic or sentimental reason the U.S. could or would withdraw from the alliance.
   However, I think the Trump administration is wise to pressure Europe to grow its role and spending. This is, in part, because there are greater security concerns elsewhere. Depending on how Ukraine negotiations go, China and North Korea may act on their regional ambitions at flashpoints that would certainly draw the U.S. and Europe into a global war — whether we care to admit it or not.

3. I think we have looked at the Ukraine conflict with too much sentimentality. The truth is, no matter how long we can fund and arm Ukraine’s military, the country cannot continue fighting this war. It is true that Russia cannot either, but it can do so longer than Kyiv. Kellogg alluded to this multiple times during his Q/A; no one side can kill their way out of this war, but Russia and its despotic allies are willing (and able) to extoll greater costs. For example, Kellogg is right to call the deployment of North Korean troops as a tell, like in poker. It is Putin simply displaying that if the need arises, a million more troops will arrive in Ukraine and sweep through the country.
   For this reason, we need to approach peace negotiations from a realistic point of view. Ukraine will have to cede territory, but it may save some due to its occupation of Kursk.
   At the same time, as Kellogg alluded to, the U.S. and the West can and should enforce measures against Russia that are capable of crippling Putin’s war-waging capability. Under such pressure, we can guarantee peace and a return to diplomatic normalcy — this is the “Peace through Strength” concept in a nutshell, but it needs total buy-in from U.S. allies.
   Again, I reiterate my earlier point: to me, this indicates a desire by the Trump administration to swiftly end the conflict, reestablish spheres of influence in Europe, and establish regional foreign policy norms — all of which are being done to ensure a peace that can outlast Putin’s lifespan and, hopefully, deter Russia from deeper integration with multipolar powers like China, North Korea, Iran or organizations like BRICS.

These are just some of my immediate thoughts as we approach a historic moment; a strategic paradigm shift.

What do you think?

Sources: Global Times, U.S. Department of State, VOA, Al Jazeera, YouTube, CNBC, YouTube, BBC, The Kyiv Independent,

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Thanks for reading!

See you Thursday,

Nick