Weekly Briefing: Trump-Musk Fallout, Operation Spiderweb & US-Iran Negotiations
This week shattered three assumptions.
First, the idea that Musk and Trump would continue to dominate America’s public-private frontier in lockstep collapsed in real time.
Second, the implicit assumption that high-value strategic assets (like long-range bombers) are safe within sovereign territory took a hit.
Third, the assumption that the US could push Iran toward halting uranium enrichment is crumbling.
Trump-Musk Fallout
It was perhaps naive to think that Musk’s retreat from the political stage would happen without a hitch. But whether you saw this coming or not, the way this one played out took many by surprise. The feud played out on social media, revealing how quickly personal rivalry can unsettle political–industrial alignments.
Musk and Trump will likely talk again, but the volatility of their relationship highlights something typical of the Trump Administration: interpersonal and transactional relationships are central to how Trump operates.
Neoclassical realist take: If individual perceptions filter systemic pressures, Trump’s perception of Musk has shifted from ally to liability. In this framework, the state’s foreign policy behaviour is not solely shaped by the international system, but by how key decision-makers interpret that system through domestic lenses.
Trump, facing electoral pressure and a fragmented political environment, likely now sees Musk’s unpredictability and influence as a challenge to agenda control. His ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ isn’t just legislative, it’s symbolic of reasserting primacy over the political-industrial narrative, sidelining anyone who disrupts coherence and messaging.
Operation Spiderweb
Ukraine’s surprise strike on Russian long-range bombers was a masterclass in asymmetric warfare, exposing deep vulnerabilities in Russia’s conventional and nuclear deterrent. As a result, NATO members are taking a hard look in the mirror as they assess their own exposure to similar low-cost-high-impact drone attacks.
Neoclassical realist take: Ukraine’s actions reflect how middle powers under existential threat are innovating to overcome systemic constraints, in Ukraine’s case, material and demographic inferiority.
Ukraine’s leadership interprets the systemic pressure of Russian aggression through a lens of necessity, opting for preemptive and symbolic strikes. For NATO, the attack disrupts long-held assumptions about geographic sanctuary. The domestic political cost of inaction, especially after witnessing Russia’s exposure, will now weigh more heavily on decision-makers in Europe and the US. In this way, structural pressures are filtered through perception and translated into new defence priorities and procurement strategies.
US-Iran Negotiations
Despite holding multiple rounds of talks aimed at resolving the question of Iran’s nuclear programme, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has instead doubled down, signalling that Tehran will not give up uranium enrichment under any circumstances. That’s a red line for Trump.
Interestingly, the Kremlin has offered to support the Trump administration in negotiations with Tehran, citing its ‘close partner relations’ with Iran as a means through which a settlement may be reached.
Why would Putin want this, and what could he gain from being involved in these negotiations?
The answer lies in the Kremlin’s vision for the Eurasian security architecture. Putin is eyeing an Iran without the current regime – a time that may be sooner than later, given Khamenei’s age and health.
That future Iran is more unknown than known, raising questions over the nation’s long-term strategic alignment. A nuclear-capable Iran in its current format could perhaps be acceptable to Moscow, but an independent/non-aligned, or worse, Israeli-US-aligned Iran would be a nightmare scenario for Russia, driving a major wedge into Moscow’s regional security structure.
Neoclassical realist take: Russia’s calculus reveals how great powers seek to influence the international system not only through direct action but by embedding themselves into diplomatic processes that could reshape regional orders. Here, domestic leadership perception, particularly Putin’s long-term view of regime transitions, informs a strategic hedge.
Rather than oppose US diplomacy outright (think about how Ukraine negotiations also play a role here), Moscow is inserting itself to shape outcomes aligned with its regional preferences. This is classic neoclassical realism: systemic anarchy exists, but it’s mediated through leadership beliefs, succession forecasting, and domestic political objectives.
That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading.
What I’m keeping an eye on over the next few days:
US-China trade talks in London on Monday. Watch for any movement on critical minerals, where China still holds considerable leverage through export controls and regulatory bottlenecks that continue to squeeze US and European carmakers.
Will Russia launch a second, more forceful retaliation against Ukraine following Operation Spiderweb? It’s a strong possibility, especially given the rising calls from Russian military commentators for a tougher response to drone attacks.
How far will Musk go with his idea of “The America Party”? While it’s unlikely he’ll upend the two-party system, it’s worth watching whether he formalises the proposal. If he does, major news outlets may start taking the idea more seriously.