Nearly 50,000 of the 60,000 young Moroccans who had entered  Ceuta, Spain’s 7.5-square-mile enclave on Africa’s coast, on July 29-30, 2026, by swimming around border barriers, may have returned to their country. But the global headlines they were responsible for have had geopolitical impacts on the rest of Europe and the United States. 

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain called the event  “a violation of Spain’s territorial integrity”. But then the fact remains that his left-wing government’s series of liberal migration policies, coupled with the Spanish Supreme Court’s ruling last month that migrants arriving by sea could not be summarily returned, prompted such a massive migration, for which the country was perhaps not ready.

Of course, this was not the first surge from Morocco. As many as 10,000 from Morocco were said to have entered Spain in 2021. But the scale on July 29-30 made it the largest not only in Spain but also in the history of the European Union(EU).

After all, Ceuta, the small Spanish exclave on the North African coast, has a permanent population of just 84,000. Obviously, swarms of 60,000 outsiders totally overwhelmed the locals.

The crisis forces 3 questions: What drove it? What does Spain’s approach mean geopolitically? And how does the debate over religion, demography and identity shape it? 

As pointed out above, the influx was possibly triggered by a ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court that a law allowing the prompt handing back of migrants who breach frontier barriers at Ceuta and Melilla, another Spanish exclave, does not apply to those who arrive by sea. (Those who swim, the court reasoned, do not technically breach frontier barriers, since there are none in the water.) Word of this got around on social media in Morocco, prompting the stream of swimmers.

It may be noted that historically, Morocco has contested Spanish sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla, just 13 to 14 kilometers from its shores through the Strait of Gibraltar. This has led some analysts to believe that  Rabat  “deliberately did little to prevent the crossings”.

They cite the similar opening that was made in 2021. But this is a minority view, given that Morocco has already facilitated the return of 50,000 of its people and is doing so even now.

The 2021 episode was a little different. That time Morocco allowed its people to wade into Ceuta, as an expression of its anger that Spain had allowed the leader of Polisario, a group that has long fought for the independence of Western Sahara, to come to Madrid for medical treatment. Morocco, incidentally, had annexed two-thirds of Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, in 1975.

However, over the last four years, diplomatic parleys between Madrid and Rabat have stabilized the bilateral ties. Spain now backs Morocco’s autonomy plan for Western Sahara in exchange for Rabat policing the coast and taking back illegal migrants.

In 2024,  Spain started a program to legalize 900,000 undocumented migrants already in Spain (most of them Moroccans)  to bring them into the tax and social security. It decided to issue  “Labor visas”, under which fast-track permits to address Spain’s rapidly falling population.

The Sanchez regime has tried to legalize immigration as much as possible under what it calls a “human rights and labor needs” approach that envisages expanded regularization programs, bilateral cooperation with Rabat, and faster work permits for migrants in agriculture, tourism, and elder care.

Apparently, Spain has become the EU’s largest entry point for irregular migration, overtaking Italy and Greece. The vast majority of arrivals were from Morocco and the likes of Malians and Senegalese, who crossed through  Morocco by sea. So much so that Spain now has the largest Moroccan diaspora in the EU — over 800,000 people of Moroccan origin, as per Spanish data.

Reportedly, the UN projects Spain needs 200,000 net migrants per year to maintain workforce size. And 10 million foreign-born people for the first time in Spain’s history; they now constitute a fifth of the country’s total population, about 50 million.

At 1.1 million, Moroccans happen to be the largest single nationality of all the foreign nationalities. Birth rates among Moroccan-origin residents are said to be higher than those of native Spaniards, but converge to the Spanish average of 1.6 percent by the second generation, per demographic studies.

In other words,  Spain’s population would be shrinking without immigration.

However, the geopolitical reactions to what happened in Spain are quite different, particularly on both sides of the Atlantic.

The incident provided armor to President Donald Trump and all his supporters in their fight against what they say is illegal immigration into the US.

As images spread, Trump posted that the Ceuta scenes “vindicated” his wall and deportation policies, arguing Europe was now facing what the US faced in 2019. US conservative media amplified the Ceuta footage as evidence for border closure.

“I saw Spain yesterday, and I watched the catastrophe that took place,” Trump told a meeting of his cabinet at the presidential Camp David retreat in Maryland. “It looks like an invasion of a country by hundreds of thousands of people, and that same thing’s going to happen to us if the Republicans don’t get elected, except worse, much bigger.”

Tech billionaire Elon Musk also commented on the situation in Spain, writing on X that “Spain’s entire budget will be destroyed by illegal migrants” and arguing that offering benefits to migrants would create a “forcing function” for large-scale migration.

There were similar reactions from right-wing parties and EU centrists across Europe, demanding tougher immigration policies.

Far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel claimed in an X post that “Ceuta was left in ruins overnight” by the mass influx from Morocco. She argued that Germany is “likely the destination for most of these migrants”, adding “Germany must prepare itself: borders must be secured and rejections rigorously enforced”.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the scenes in Ceuta as evidence that “uncontrolled illegal immigration poses a concrete threat to the security of Europe’s borders,” saying Italy was prepared to take “extraordinary measures” to defend its borders and the safety of its citizens, including the possible suspension of the Schengen Area with Spain.

The right-wing ruling coalition in Finland also called for excluding Spain from the European visa-free zone as a result of the situation. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis said the Ceuta situation was caused by Spain’s policy of offering hundreds of thousands of migrants already in the country a legal status.

In fact, the weekend incident in Spain is said to have accentuated the political turbulence in Europe and strengthened forces, including even conservatives and liberals, to end what was hitherto a “Liberal Consensus” on a liberal immigration policy.

That explains why on Saturday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and Italian Premier Meloni initiated a letter that got signed by 22 member states, calling for immediate EU action.

“The bloc cannot allow uncontrolled mass crossings, the instrumentalization of migration or other hybrid threats to create the perception that illegal entry into the European Union is possible,” they wrote.

It may be noted here that for years Germany was the face of liberal asylum policy under Chancellor Angela Merkel. Now it has really reversed that under immense political pressure.

The AfD nearly doubled its vote share, especially in eastern Germany, by campaigning on immigration and crime linked to asylum seekers. As a result, the new CDU-SPD coalition started last year the policy of  “Stricter border checks” and a “de facto entry ban” for undocumented migrants,  including asylum seekers.

Even the British leadership labeled the developments in Spain deeply concerning while highlighting that the UK’s own restrictive operational measures are yielding lower overall small-boat crossing numbers compared to prior tracking periods.

Moving away from past perceptions of a liberal framework to stem the rise of populist Reform Party UK,  the ruling Labour Party is now systematically tightening rules through higher salary thresholds, bans on dependents for most students, restrictions on overseas care worker recruitment, and shorter temporary protection grants for refugees.

And still its government is facing intense but growing popular pressure for mass deportations, rigorous enforcement and digital pre-departure checks.

Incidentally, the growing fears in Europe over uncontrolled and illegal immigration seem to have an angle of the fear of “Islamisation”. It may not be the main driver of policy changes, but it is a major factor in the political turbulence around immigration, particularly in Germany, the UK, and France.

There is a growing Muslim population in these countries due to immigration and higher birth rates among the immigrants.

Reportedly,  there are 5.5 to 6.5 million Muslims in France, making it the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe. This group makes up about 8% to 10% of the country’s total population. The majority of them have roots in North Africa (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia), with smaller groups from Turkey and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Germany’s Muslim population is estimated to be between 5.5 and 7 million, which makes up roughly 6.5% to 8.5% of the country’s total population. The largest group has Turkish heritage, dating back to the guest worker program in the 1960s. Recent growth comes from refugees and migrants arriving from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The Muslim population in the United Kingdom is approximately 4 million people, making up about 6.0% to 6.5% of the total population. Islam is the second-largest religion in the country.

The largest share, as much as 66 percent, of British Muslims trace their family roots to the Indian subcontinent, with many arriving in waves during the 1950s and 1960s to fill postwar labor shortages. The rest came mainly from Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus.

In these three leading countries, considered to be the engines of Europe, the Muslim immigrants have created what are called economic, cultural, and political concerns over their running parallel societies, sharia law, religious schools, mosques, headscarves, and value clashes over free speech, gender, and LGBTQ issues.

Besides, there are problems relating to issues concerning economics, housing, asylum backlog, crime (the rise of extremism in Islam), and border control.

As it is, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark have already passed laws on face veils, foreign funding of mosques, and “ghetto” laws. Denmark’s Social Democrats explicitly said they wanted “fewer Muslims” to protect their welfare state.

But then, as seen in Spain, these countries also face acute labor shortages, for filling up which most of these Muslims, like others, migrate. In any case, apart from the UK, in no country have Muslims become politically active to endanger the native whites. They do not have high-paying jobs like the skilled and highly educated immigrants, though they are doing very well in the sporting arena.

Therefore, if they are being seen with suspicion, it is because of the changes they have made to mainstream culture.

For many center-right and working-class voters in Europe, that includes concerns about mosques, religious schools, and values. That is why even left-wing parties like UK Labour and German SPD are now tightening controls. They have realized that if one does not address the cultural anxiety, one loses to parties who do or will.

In sum, what the weekend’s episode in Spain seems to have done is raise two questions: whether a liberal-immigration model of Europe will survive by combining open labor markets with credible borders; and whether Europe will still debate culture without dehumanizing people.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Trump Calls It “Invasion,” Musk Says Budget “Destroyed”: Moroccan Surge in Spain Rattles U.S. & Europe and Reignites “Islamic Fear” appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Meet the Neighbors – Life on Mars and How to Find It by Steven A. Benner; Allen Lane, (an imprint of Penguin Books); July 2026; 416 pages (Hardcover); $40.99 (Amazon). Talk about a “cold case” – nothing like dealing with life on Mars where the temperature can drop like a rock to roughly – 89°C at […]

China released the teaser footage of the fifth prototype of its sixth-generation fighter jet, the J-36. The big question is: has Beijing leapfrogged the U.S. F-47 aircraft?

China Military Bugle, the official press account of the People’s Liberation Army, published a four-minute video on July 26, marking the 10th anniversary of China’s first heavy transport aircraft, the Y-20, entering service.

In the video’s last scene, one of the Y-20 co-pilots asks his captain: “Who are we refueling today?”

“First the ‘Master Six’, then the ‘Little Six’,” the captain replies.

The final shot clearly shows the now familiar three-engine tailless J-36 flying next to the Y-20.

In Chinese defense circles, “Master Six” is an informal nickname for the H-6 strategic bomber, and “Little Six” is a reference to the sixth-generation fighter.

PLA just hinted at the 6th-gen fighter in the video Y-20's 10th anniversary service!

"Captain, who are we refueling today?"

"First 'Sixth Master' (H-6), then 'Little Six' (6th-gen)."

The final shot clearly shows the unannounced but well-known 6th-gen jet. pic.twitter.com/dmVdErtXmO

— Li Zexin 李泽欣 (@XH_Lee23) June 28, 2026

Notably, while there have been multiple videos and pictures of the J-36, this is the first time that the video of the unusual, three-engine fighter jet has been released in official Chinese media.

This is seen as China’s first official acknowledgment of the existence and flight testing of the next-generation fighter jet.

Online videos and pictures of the J-36 have been circulating since December 2024, when China simultaneously unveiled two next-generation stealth aircraft, dubbed J-36 and J-50, during flight tests near Chengdu, Sichuan.

The J-36’s trijet design, featuring a blended double delta wing structure, was immediately documented. However, those videos were shot from the ground, and China’s government, military officials, or aviation companies did not make any comment on the new fighter jet.

Nearly three months later, in March 2025, the J-36 made a second appearance over Chengdu. This time, it flew solo, and the videos gave clear views of the aircraft’s trijet configuration, dorsal intake, and control surfaces.

Since then, the aircraft has been sighted multiple times flying over Chengdu.

The latest video, featuring the J-36 flying next to the Y-20, also makes it clear that the aircraft is equipped with air-to-air refueling capacity.

Song Zhongping, a military commentator and former PLA instructor, told Hong Kong-based SCMP that the video indicated that the sixth-generation fighter was almost certainly equipped with air-to-air refueling capability.

“And it is highly likely that it has already conducted air-to-air refueling tests during flight testing,” he said.

Air-to-air refueling capacity is crucial to navigate the long distances of the Pacific theatre.

“If a tactical aircraft’s endurance and combat radius approach those of a medium-range strategic bomber, it would be capable of carrying out patrol missions of strategic significance,” Fu Qianshao, a military analyst and former PLA Air Force officer, said.

The latest images appear to show further significant changes to the aircraft’s design and underscore its rapid evolution.

According to experts, this might be the fifth prototype of the J-36.

China’s decision to officially acknowledge the J-36 in the Y-20 anniversary video, while simultaneously flying what appears to be a fifth prototype within just 19 months of the first sightings, marks a significant acceleration in its sixth-generation fighter program.

The aircraft’s large airframe, evolving stealth features, and confirmed aerial-refueling capability suggest Beijing is prioritizing long-range, high-endurance operations across the Pacific. If the current pace of flight testing continues, China could field an operational sixth-generation platform earlier than many Western programs currently project — a development that would reshape the airpower balance in the Indo-Pacific.

Andreas Rupprecht, an aviation analyst and expert on China’s air force, said the structural differences between the earliest and latest examples made it unlikely the sightings simply showed a single aircraft being repeatedly modified.

“It is still difficult to assess this with any certainty,” he said. “But if one takes the reports from reliable sources as a basis, there is indeed some strong evidence to support it.”

According to Rupprecht, the J-36 program appeared to have progressed through at least three distinct configurations since December 2024.

However, he cautioned that faster flight testing of the J-36 might not translate into quicker operationalization of the fighter aircraft into the PLA Air Force (PLAAF).

Rupprecht suggested that he expected China to deliver the first pre-production batch to the PLA Air Force before 2030, with operationalization of the final production model some years later.

He also suggested that the J-36’s unusually large size meant the aircraft was more likely to serve as a heavily armed command platform capable of directing armed loyal wingman drones and other fighter jets, aided by its powerful sensors and long-range weapons.

“I am more convinced that the J-36 is something entirely distinct,” he said, describing it as an “aerial air-defense node” comparable in concept to an Aegis-equipped US warship coordinating a wider combat network.

In Rupprecht’s view, these different roles and designs make J-36’s comparisons with the F-47 misleading. In fact, he suggested that it will be more fruitful to compare the F-47 with J-50.

Regardless of the substantial differences in design and possibly in their roles, it can not be denied that China’s J-36 is progressing much faster than the US’s next-generation fighter jet.

While the J-36’s fifth prototype is flying, there is no publicly available picture of the F-47 flying.

The first flight of the F-47 is expected sometime in 2028.

In fact, according to the latest reports, the F-47 is expected to initially fly with an interim engine, as the US’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program could be ready for integration onto an actual aircraft only by 2030.

This means that at least the F-47 prototype, and possibly the first operational F-47s, will have to fly with a different engine before the NGAP engine is integrated into the F-47 around 2030-2031.

Meanwhile, the GCAP, the UK, Italy, and Japan’s combined tri-nation sixth-generation fighter jet program, is expected to enter operational service around 2035.

The FCAS, Germany, Spain, and France’s sixth-generation fighter jet program has already collapsed.

Fu Qianshao, a military analyst and former PLA Air Force officer, said that China’s program was progressing much faster than comparable efforts in the US, Russia and Europe.

“In my view, China’s fighter development … is now ahead of its competitors,” he said.

These timelines suggest that for the first time in history, China might beat the US and Europe in integrating a next-generation fighter jet in operational service, which could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power, particularly in the Pacific theatre.

Furthermore, the J-36’s aerial refueling capability, combined with its unusually large size and greater fuel capacity, would give it exceptional range, an advantage that could prove decisive in the contest for air superiority across the Pacific theater.

“The aircraft could potentially operate beyond the western Pacific and, in some cases, reach the Indian Ocean, which would have significant strategic implications,” Fu added.

• Nitin J Ticku holds a double master’s degree in Journalism and Business Management from the University of Glasgow. He has over 20 years of global experience in MARCOM, Journalism, and Digital Marketing, and has worked & traveled widely across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Nitin is the Editor of the EurAsian Times.
• He can be reached at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post J-36 vs F-47: China’s J-36 Pulls Ahead of U.S. F-47 as PLA Becomes First To Release “Teaser” of 6th-Gen Aircraft appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

There seems to be an emerging consensus among strategic circles all over the world that while the rising global popularity of China, evident from the latest survey from the Pew Research Center on July 15, may not equate to the real global strategic leverage that America still possesses, it is a critical warning signal for the U.S.  

In its survey, based on interviews with more than 42,000 people across 36 countries, Pew found that China is now viewed more favorably than the United States.

Among the 20 economies with comparable data, the median share of respondents expressing favorable views of China reached 46 percent, compared with 36 percent for the United States.

Similarly, during the first two years of his second term, President Donald Trump’s own ratings have also worsened significantly. Chinese President Xi Jinping now exceeds confidence posed in  Trump by 10 (ten)  points (31:21).

More favorable views of Xi were noticed in 22 of 36 countries. More overall now say that they have confidence in Xi than in Trump.

Pew says that more people have favorable views of China than the U.S. in 25 out of 36 countries, including Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, and Australia. Only 6 (six) countries still rate the U.S. more positively: India, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Poland, and Israel.

And, according to Pew, there has been a “historic shift” in the sense that in 20 countries with data back to 2023, nearly “50% held a positive view of China”, while only “36% regarded the US favorably”. In 2023 it was the reverse: U.S. 58% vs China 32%.

Importantly,  Pew cites worsening views of the U.S. since Trump’s second term began, and the US-led war in Iran where “people have less confidence” that the U.S. is contributing to peace. On the contrary, Beijing portrayed itself as a “stabilizing force”.

Incidentally, Pew’s findings are far from an isolated case. Earlier this year (April), Gallup reported that global approval of China’s leadership had surpassed that of the United States by the widest margin in nearly two decades.

“China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36% approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31% for the U.S. China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the U.S. is the widest Gallup has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years…..At the same time, disapproval of U.S. leadership rose to a record-high 48%, while China’s disapproval rating remained flat at 37%, Gallup said.

Coming back to the Pew findings, many analysts have agreed with the think-tank that the Trump administration’s tariffs, aid cuts, disdain for allies, and his sheer transactional diplomacy are actively ceding the soft-power contest to Beijing.

In other words,  the volatility of American policy under Trump, which includes the use of force and the economic damage from tariffs,  has hardened international sentiment against the United States. This has helped China build the perception that it is a more reliable entity.

But then, the fact remains that China has also worked hard to earn its present position.

Extensive Diplomatic Work is bringing the World to Beijing. Since December 2025, Xi and his foreign minister Wang Yi have hosted the political leaders of all the permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and met with all of the candidates for the UN’s next secretary-general, among an “endless stream” of foreign leaders in Beijing.

The city hosted President Donald Trump in May, followed soon after by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Across roughly 500 diplomatic engagements in the first half of 26 conducted by more than 20 senior officials, Beijing has seized the opportunity to make its pitch to the world. Our survey results suggest that this work is paying off.

Besides, as Arran Hope, editor of “China Brief” at the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation, observes, “at the regional level, Europe’s importance is reflected in its high volume of diplomatic engagements: no other region received as much attention between January and June, with the United Kingdom and Belarus receiving the most. ASEAN countries saw the next highest degree of engagement, which is in line with trends laid out above”.

Xi, according to Hope, has been a keen promoter of “Asian values” in the region (of China) in recent times, which for the ruling Chinese Communist Party is a byword for anti-Western and pro-authoritarian, and is linked to gaining advantage in strategic competition with the United States.

Following the Pew survey, China’s People’s Daily wrote a commentary, which says, among other reasons, that China’s growing international goodwill is fostered by the appeal of its culture.

“Chinese cultural products are reaching wider global audiences than ever before. The phenomenal international success of the animated film Ne Zha 2 and the video game Black Myth: Wukong has sparked renewed global interest in Chinese mythology and traditional culture”, the commentary says.

Scholars like Yanzhong Huang agree.

“Culturally, the “Chinamaxxing” phenomenon—a viral social-media trend in which young Westerners embrace Chinese lifestyles, from drinking hot water to riding China’s high-speed rail vicariously through influencer livestreams—has given China the kind of organic, bottom-up cachet long enjoyed by Japan and South Korea, amplified by breakout products like the video game Black Myth: Wukong, the film Ne Zha 2, and Labubu dolls”.

He adds that China’s development model has also gained prestige: its dominance in electric vehicles, batteries, and infrastructure has made “the China model” an object of emulation rather than derision—so much so that Washington itself now practices industrial policy that borrows unmistakably from Beijing’s playbook.

However, notwithstanding all this, there are some limitations of China if one takes the Pew findings under closer scrutiny.

First, Chinese popularity is not uniform, covering all parts of the world.

Pew finds favorability toward China markedly higher in the emerging economies of Africa, Latin America, and South and Southeast Asia, with record highs this year in Colombia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Turkey.

China has also gained among the United States’ Western allies—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands —as well as in parts of Latin America, where several publics once viewed the United States more favorably before Trump’s second innings.

But the fact remains that the U.S. also has significant support in six countries  – India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Israel and Poland. Consequently, four of these happen to be China’s neighbors, and five of them (except Poland) are in Asia.

In the Philippines, 81 percent see the United States as a reliable partner compared with 42 percent for China. It seems that proximity to Chinese power, particularly when accompanied by maritime disputes, blunts Beijing’s appeal.

Secondly, and this is a corollary of the above, in terms of numbers, people in the world supporting the U.S. and China are more or less even. The U.S. should thank India for this. Negative-leaning views of India’s 1.4 billion people completely offset the strongly positive views of China in 30 other countries.

And here, what is noteworthy is that in Trump’s favorite Pakistan, China leads the U.S. in popularity by over 75 percent, the highest in the countries surveyed. Even in Bangladesh, where the coup dislodging Sheikh Hasina had the American blessings,  China’s lead is over 30 percent.

Thirdly, Huang makes one interesting point that  “soft power”, which reflects popularity, is, by its very nature, far more mercurial than hard power. Public opinion can swing within a single year.

He quotes the  ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s annual survey of Southeast Asia to illustrate that in 2024, when asked to choose, respondents sided with China for the first time (50.5 to 49.5 percent);  in 2025, they flipped back to the United States (52.3 to 47.7 percent); and in 2026, they flipped again to China (52 to 48 percent). “Sentiment that oscillates this easily is a weathervane, not a monument”, he argues.

To buttress his argument, he adds that Soft power ultimately derives from credibility rather than propaganda—and solid, credible foundations for China’s appeal have yet to be laid. In Inside China, there are no signs of meaningful improvement in the rule of law or political freedom—if anything, the trajectory points the other way—and global publics have noticed. In only eleven of the thirty-six countries Pew surveyed do around half or more say the Chinese government respects the personal freedoms of its people.

Considering all this, the Chinese score over the U.S. in the Pew Survey does not necessarily flow from intrinsic strength, and it is most likely due to deteriorating opinions of the United States under Trump.

In other words, Washington’s loss does not necessarily translate into a commensurate lasting gain for Beijing.

Thus,  one could say that it is too soon to declare a Chinese victory.

In 2026, the world may “like” China more than America for the first time, going by the Pew survey. But does the world “love”  China more than America? Pew does not deal with this question, though in geopolitics, the difference between “like” and “love” does matter. And things can change sooner rather than later if the U.S. takes corrective measures.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• CONTACT: prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Thanks to India, U.S. & China Remain Neck-and-Neck in Global Popularity. 1.4B People Keep The Balance Even appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

The engine challenges facing India’s AMCA and Turkey’s KAAN fifth-generation fighters are well documented. Both programs will initially fly with General Electric engines while their indigenous powerplants are developed and integrated.

Yet even the United States, long a key supplier of engines for foreign fighter prototypes, is also grappling with significant propulsion problems of its own, as the timelines for first flight of the F-47 prototype and next-generation fighter jet engine are out of sync.

The sixth-generation fighter jet, F-47, developed under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, is expected to fly for the first time in 2028.

However, a prototype jet engine developed under the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program could be ready for integration onto an actual aircraft only by 2030, as per the latest information provided by the US Air Force (USAF).

This means that at least the F-47 prototype, and possibly the first operational F-47s, will have to fly with a different engine before the NGAP engine is integrated into the F-47 around 2030-2031.

The integration of NGAP with the F-47 will unlock the full potential of the next-generation fighter jet; however, this also raises the crucial question of which engine will power the initial F-47 prototypes.

John Sneden, the Portfolio Acquisition Executive in charge of the Propulsion Directorate at the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), recently provided a new timeline for the NGAP engine.

The NGAP program will culminate in “get[ting] ready for potential integration activities in the 2030 timeframe,” Breaking Defense quoted Sneden as saying.

Notably, the USAF’s 2027 budget proposal also supports this timeline for the NGAP.

The document says that the NGAP’s “Prototype Fabrication & Engine Assessment” phase will run through at least September 2031.

In fact, the budget proposal shows that the funding for the NGAP program will gradually surge going forward.

The USAF is seeking nearly US$513.7 million for the program in FY2027, and then expects to request US$905.7 million and US$865 million in Fiscal Years 2028 and 2029, respectively.

Speaking with reporters at the Life Cycle Industry Days conference, Sneden, however, refused to confirm what platform might receive the NGAP engine first.

“The Air Force is still evaluating its options,” Sneden said, emphasizing that the underlying engine technology may “open up” different choices down the road. “What we’re doing right now is we’re building our system today, and we’re getting ready for the future.”

Sneden also hinted that the NGAP engine could be integrated backward into existing designs, including the F-47.

A new NGAP engine “could” go on the F-47, Sneden said, emphasizing that no decisions have been made. He, however, stressed that NGAP “is really a host of technologies” that can be integrated backward into existing designs.

While the NGAP was initially envisioned to provide a powerplant for the NGAD fighter, now christened the F-47, USAF officials have often noted that the NGAP is designed to be platform-agnostic, meaning it could power various platforms and aircraft designs.

When it comes to where NGAP stands now, “initial hardware is procured, their design meets our standards, everything is clean from that end, and both vendors have been able to do that,” Sneden was quoted as saying by the Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The two vendors in question are GE Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney (a subsidiary of RTX). GE Aerospace, with the XA102, and Pratt & Whitney, with the XA103, are both developing competing adaptive-cycle engines under the USAF’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion program. In simple terms, adaptive-cycle engines can perform like a turbofan when optimal and like a turbojet when needed. This means that the same engine can save fuel when needed and can deliver more power when required.

However, no final production winner has been selected yet for the Boeing F-47.

These engines aim for better fuel efficiency, thrust, range, thermal management, and power generation compared with current fifth-generation engines. Both companies completed detailed design reviews in 2025 and assembly readiness reviews in May this year. Prototype fabrication is currently underway, and ground testing is expected in the late 2020s.

Currently, there is no clarity on which interim engine could power F-47 prototypes, but the possible options discussed in media reports include variants of the Pratt & Whitney F135, F119, F100, or GE F110.

However, it is not unusual for fighter jet prototypes to fly with an interim engine before a new engine is integrated into final products.

Fighter Jets That Flew With Interim Powerplants

For instance, Turkey’s underdevelopment fifth-generation fighter jet, Kaan, is currently flying with two General Electric F110 engines. Early production blocks are expected to continue with F110 before the indigenous TF35000 is integrated.

India’s fifth-generation AMCA and 4.5-generation Tejas Mk1 variants are planned to fly with GE F414 engines, before an indigenous or co-developed engine is fully mature for integration.

Similarly, Russia’s fifth-generation Su-57 first flew with the AL-41F1 (Izdeliye 117) engines. Upgraded Su-57 variants with the new engine, AL-51F1, have recently begun flying, and full integration is currently underway.

China’s first fifth-generation fighter jet, the J-20, also initially flew with a Russian AL-31FN engine. Later variants of the J-20 flew with Chinese WS-10 variants. However, even that was an interim solution. The intended definitive engine is the more powerful WS-15.

Even Dassault Rafale first flew in 1986 with two General Electric F404 engines. Later models mixed one M88 with one F404, before the final products flew with both M88 engines.

Similarly, Eurofighter Typhoon first flew in 1994 with Turbo-Union RB199 engines, which were derived from those on the Panavia Tornado. Later models started using the EJ200 engines.

The same EJ200 engine is expected to power the initial prototypes of the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), jointly developed by the UK, Italy, and Japan. A completely new next-generation engine, developed by Rolls-Royce, Avio Aero, and IHI, is being developed in parallel for the production models of the GCAP.

Even in the US, many fighter jets initially flew with interim engines before the final engine was integrated.

For instance, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter first flew with the Wright J65 turbojet engine. However, the production model of the aircraft received the more powerful J79.

The F-14 Tomcat was planned around the Pratt & Whitney F401 turbofan engine. However, that engine program was canceled, and the fighter jet was fitted with Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan engines. Later, the F-14 Tomcats were fitted with the General Electric F110 turbofans.

On the upside, testing a new fighter jet prototype with an already mature and tested powerplant has its own advantages. It allows for risk management by allowing airframe flight testing, systems integration, and early operational assessment with an engine that is already mature. In the meantime, the new, more advanced fighter jet engine can be tested for risks and matured before integrating it with the already tested airframe.

Testing a new airframe with a new engine could be a high-risk affair.

However, there could also be certain drawbacks, as it could lead to performance shortfalls, design mismatch, or even require restructuring.

Given the timeline mismatch between F-47 prototypes’ first flight and the NGAP engine, it is all but certain that the first prototypes, and perhaps even some production models, will fly with an interim powerplant.

However, USAF officials have noted in the past that the NGAP is designed to be “platform agnostic” and could be easily integrated backward into existing designs. Therefore, integrating the NGAP with the F-47 should not be problematic, and this way Boeing could meet ambitious timelines for the project.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, The Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post U.S. F-47 Could Fly Without Its Engines! Like India’s AMCA & Turkey’s KAAN, Another Next-Gen Jet Likely To Use Interim Engines appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

OPED by Raghu Gururaj, Retired Ambassador and former Indian diplomat

The Gulf crisis has crossed the boiling point. As Donald Trump bombarded key Iranian infrastructure targets this week to force a negotiation, defiant Tehran promptly retaliated, killing three US soldiers at a military base in Jordan and attacking a desalination plant and an oil facility in Kuwait

Few wars in recent history have threatened to inflict such enduring damage on the global economy while offering so little strategic payoff.  Until recently, one of the world’s busiest and most critical maritime corridors, Hormuz, had been a theatre for geopolitical confrontation.

Prosperous Gulf economies, long regarded as islands of stability, now find themselves under the constant shadow of missile strikes.

Irrespective of the eventual military outcome, the economic costs of the ongoing Gulf war will far outlive its battlefield gains. Even if one accepts that Israel and the United States initiated the military confrontation, Iran is now compounding that error by widening the battlefield to Gulf states.

Iran is playing a dangerous game and may have crossed a strategic Rubicon. There are many reasons why this war is working against Tehran’s long-term interests.

Iran cannot change its location

Firstly, Iran’s decision to militarily attack Gulf countries is strategically perplexing. Even those Gulf states that had sought a pragmatic modus vivendi with Iran now view it through a harsher security lens. Israel has the backing of the United States.

The Gulf monarchies possess enormous financial reserves and can rebuild damaged infrastructure. Global shipping will eventually find alternative routes. But Iran cannot change its geography. It will remain surrounded by the very Gulf states whose trust it is now eroding.

Throwing away painstaking regional diplomacy

Secondly, Iran may well remember where it was only a few years ago. Ironically, it entered this decade with an opportunity to escape years of isolation. The restoration of diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia (brokered by China), improved relations with the UAE and a broader desire for regional deescalation offered Tehran a chance to re-enter Gulf politics as a legitimate regional stakeholder.

By widening the conflict, Iran now risks throwing away years of diplomatic rehabilitation.

Iran’s structural economic weakness

Third, Iran’s own economy cannot sustain permanent confrontation. It entered the conflict from a position of structural weakness. Years of sanctions, inflation, currency depreciation and under-investment have left little margin for prolonged regional confrontation. Every additional crisis further discourages investment, accelerates capital flight and youth unemployment, and delays economic recovery.

Iran’s ability to influence regional disparities is a double-edged sword

Fourth, a strategic advantage which Iran possesses is that it derives influence from regional divisions. But any future reconciliation between Israel and an Arab neighbor, every settlement in Yemen or Lebanon, every alternative trade and energy corridor to the Strait of Hormuz reduces Tehran’s strategic relevance.

The most effective response to Iranian coercion is therefore not more coercion, but making Iran gradually less central to the region’s security and commerce.

Iran’s control over Hormuz is not absolute

Fifth, Iran is possibly making a strategic mistake forcing the rest of the world to find a sustainable and structural solution to get around the Hormuz problem. No doubt, Hormuz gives Iran leverage that cannot simply be wished away overnight.

The question, then, is how to reduce Iran’s ability to weaponize that leverage? This disruption has already compelled many Gulf States to launch or revitalize alternate energy infrastructure corridors. The UAE’s construction of a new pipeline and a new deep-water port on its east coast in Fujairah aims to reduce dependence on Hormuz.

A pipeline project to connect Iraq to Jordan to provide Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar alternative outlets for their energy exports is under serious discussion. If the India-Middle East-European Economic Corridor (IMEC) takes off, it will boost Gulf corridor connectivity.

During the Cold War, the West never tried to eliminate the Soviet Union’s strategic advantages overnight. Instead, it invested in alternatives until those advantages mattered less. The same logic could apply to Hormuz.

Iran’s post-war diplomacy faces challenges

Iran will find its post-war diplomacy challenging as long as it continues to threaten the security of the Gulf nations. India’s interests are already directly harmed through attacks affecting Indian nationals, shipping, or energy security.

The USA, Europe,and Israel remain firmly opposed to Tehran anyway. In this scenario, Iran’s diplomatic options narrow considerably. It would increasingly depend on China for energy purchases and investment and Russia for military, diplomatic, and technological cooperation.

It could also depend on a limited network of partners such as Iraq, Syria (contingent on developments), and some non-state allies. That is not an enviable position to be in. Excessive dependence on China and Russia also weakens Iran’s strategic autonomy because Beijing and Moscow will prioritize their own interests over Tehran’s in the long run.

What US strategy can alter Iran’s incentives?

 Whatever one’s assessment of how this conflict began, the United States also has choices to make to create an acceptable off-ramp for the major stakeholders. It has many levers, but only some are likely to change Iran’s strategic calculus. Iran’s economic reintegration is the strongest positive lever.

Iran desperately needs sanctions relief (even though it has lived under sanctions for decades), foreign investment, access to international banking, and modernization of its oil and gas sector. The US cannot offer these unconditionally, but it can make them contingent on Iran ending attacks on Gulf shipping, proxies, and regional infrastructure.

Iran wants recognition as a legitimate regional power. The US can either facilitate or block Iran’s entry into regional security dialogues and international economic forums. This matters because Iran has long argued that it deserves a seat at the regional table. The implicit bargain is that Iran can either remain isolated and economically stagnant or become a normal regional power. That is probably the most powerful long-term incentive.

The paradox is that Washington need not defeat Iran to change Iranian behavior. It only needs to convince Tehran that every attempt to exploit geography accelerates the world’s search for alternatives, weakens Iran’s regional standing and leaves it increasingly dependent on a shrinking circle of partners.

For that to happen, the US will have to find ways to gain some trust with the Iranian leadership. Iran will most likely dismiss American pressure with hostility, but may find it harder to ignore simultaneous pressure from a coalition comprising India, Japan, South Korea, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the EU and others that have traditionally tried to maintain working relations with it.

A coalition in defense of freedom of navigation and regional stability would appear more reasonable to Iran than a coalition against itself.  China’s influence is often overlooked. It buys Iranian oil in bulk and wants uninterrupted Gulf trade. If Iran keeps threatening Hormuz, Beijing eventually has an incentive to pressure Tehran because instability hurts Chinese energy security.

A key insight for Iran

The key insight for Iran is that it can weaponize Hormuz only so long as the world remains highly dependent on it. Every missile that threatens the Gulf accelerates investments that reduce Iran’s leverage.

Every attack on shipping strengthens international resolve to diversify away from Hormuz. Every strike on a neighboring state diminishes the diplomatic goodwill Tehran will desperately need once the guns fall silent.  Iran can hold the world hostage for a while, but cannot build its future by doing so.

is the strategic paradox Tehran has to consider. That is why this is ultimately Iran’s war to lose.

• Raghu Gururaj is a former Indian foreign service officer. He last retired from the post of Ambassador of India. His diplomatic assignments include Yemen, Singapore, Argentina, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, and the Republic of Saotome and Principe. He has a master’s in economics and political science and a diploma in journalism. 
• This is an Opinion Article. Personal views of the Author
•  He can be reached on X: @Rgururaj7

The post “This is Ultimately Iran’s War to Lose”: Ex-Indian Ambassador on Tehran’s Dangerous Hormuz Strategy appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Cheap, mobile, easily deployable, constantly adapting, and deadly accurate; that’s how US military officials are describing Iran’s new ballistic missile – Kheibar Shekan.

While ballistic missiles are relatively easy targets to shoot down (compared to Hypersonic missiles) due to their fixed trajectories, quite a few Kheibar Shekan have penetrated U.S. air defense systems in the Middle East, drawing the attention of U.S. military officials and security analysts.

According to unnamed U.S. officials who spoke with The Wall Street Journal, Iran has adapted its military tactics by utilizing Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles to target U.S. bases across the Middle East, altering flight paths, speeds, and mid-air maneuvers to breach American air defenses.

Iran is increasingly depending on these cheap missiles to breach American defenses, using them as part of complex attacks, where they are fired along with a salvo of cheap drones and missiles with fixed trajectories, to confuse American air defenses.

These complex attacks, alongside the changes introduced to the Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles to make them more lethal and harder to intercept, underscore that Iran is an adaptive adversary.

So what is this Kheibar Shekan ballistic missile that has become the new headache of the US military, and what makes it so lethal?

The Kheibar Shekan Ballistic Missile

The Kheibar Shekan, or Kheibar-buster, is named after a Jewish castle overrun by Muslim warriors in the early days of Islam.

In 628 CE, Prophet Muhammad himself led a military campaign against the Jewish communities living in the oasis of Khaybar.

It is a medium-range ballistic missile unveiled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in 2022. It belongs to the Fateh family of solid-fuel missiles and has become one of the most advanced developments of Iran’s missile program.

According to Iranian claims, the missile has a range of approximately 1,400 to 2400 km. This allows it to strike targets across much of the Middle East, including Israel. Furthermore, the missile travels at over 6,000 miles per hour.

It carries a 550 kg warhead in its nose section.

Unlike older Iranian liquid-fuel missiles, the Kheibar Shekan uses a solid-fuel propulsion system. This design has several advantages: missiles can be stored for longer periods in a ready state, require less time for launch preparation, and can quickly reposition after use.

This is a significant advance as Iran’s older missiles required lengthy prelaunch fueling, which in turn made their tracking and targeting by the US easier.

BREAKING – Iran's latest ballistic missile, Kheibar Shekan; stockpile of 50,000 units. Guided by BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS‑3). Range: 2,450 km. Max speed: up to 19,500 km/h (approx. Mach 16). Warhead: approximately 550 kg. pic.twitter.com/E1jzHTxY9F

— IRGC (@IRGC_Press) July 25, 2026

However, Kheibar Shekans can be kept fueled and loaded onto trucks or other launcher vehicles quickly, making their targeting difficult.

For modern missile systems, rapid deployment has become an important factor. Even a precision-guided missile has limited effectiveness if its launchers are easy to detect and destroy.

Despite these advantages, the US was able to shoot them down easily because of their fixed, easily predictable flight paths.

Ballistic missiles travel into the upper atmosphere of space before plunging back down towards a target, usually at hypersonic speeds, but are not capable of maneuvering in the final phase of their flight.

This is where the Kheibar Shekan differs and becomes more lethal.

According to US military officials, in some of the Kheibar Shekans, the nose section of the missile, which carries the explosive warhead and detaches during the final phase of the missile, is equipped with a small engine that makes it capable of adjusting its flight path in the terminal phase as it nears its target. This final-phase maneuvering makes interception by air defense systems harder.

Another advantage is its cost. The cost ratio between offensive and defensive means is an important differentiator.

While Iran has not officially disclosed the cost of the Keibar Shekan, experts believe that it is significantly cheaper than the interceptors employed by the US, such as Patriots, THAAD, and the US Navy’s SM-6 interceptors.

For instance, an SM-6 interceptor missile can cost about US$4–5 million, and a PAC-3 MSE missile for the Patriot system costs approximately US$4–6 million per unit.

 

The significantly lower price tag of Kheibar Shekan creates the problem of ‘cost depletion of air defense,’ as even a successful interception would hurt the US more due to the higher cost of replacing its interceptor munition.

Additionally, according to some reports, the satellite-guided missile now uses China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BNSS), which increases its precision.

The mobility, rapid deployment, precision, final-stage maneuverability, and cost of the Kheibar Shekan make it a deadly missile.

However, the Iranian strategy of launching them alongside dozens of high-speed drones and other ballistic missiles makes their interception even harder.

According to defense and security expert Patricia Marins, Iran had a stockpile of about 2,000–2,200 Kheibar Shekan before the 12-day war, and today, after the conflict with the U.S., it still has some 1,700 missiles in its arsenal.

She further estimates that nearly a third of the Kheibar Shekan missiles have been upgraded to the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System.

“I think what it tells us is Iran is paying attention, and they’re learning and they’re looking at ways that they can get at use,” retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, who has led the US Central Command, told the WSJ.

Iran “has seen what types of maneuvers are the most effective ones for overcoming missile defense,” said Fabian Hinz, an independent missile expert. “Every single combat use gives you some sort of data, so that’s very useful for the Iranians.”

Meanwhile, another headache for the US is its declining stockpiles of interceptors.

Declining Interceptor Stockpile of US Military

In April, in a detailed study, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated that by that time, the US had already expended nearly half of its SM-3 missiles, nearly a quarter of its SM-6 missiles, two-thirds of its THAAD interceptors, and more than half of its pre-war stock of Patriot interceptors.

This declining stockpile of interceptors means that the US is forced to prioritize which incoming projectiles to intercept, and it is deliberately allowing some Iranian projectiles to pass through its defenses.

The U.S. military commanders have been picking and choosing which Iranian missiles and explosive-packed drones to intercept and are allowing some attacks through their defenses, amid an effort to preserve the Pentagon’s diminishing supply of weapons that block projectiles from reaching their targets, two senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

U.S. officials also said that in some cases the military deliberately allowed Iranian missiles and drones to hit U.S. bases if no personnel were stationed there.

Some defense experts have opined that this declining stockpile of interceptors was a key factor for the US to pause its airstrikes on Iran on July 27.

According to the New York Times, U.S. President Donald Trump backed away from escalating the war against Iran after advisers warned him about the risks of depleting America’s missile stockpiles.

According to officials, Washington believes that Russia and China are closely monitoring the pace at which U.S. military stockpiles are being depleted and could factor this into their planning for military actions.

However, depleting U.S. interceptor stockpiles and open acknowledgments by U.S. officials that the new Iranian strategy, combined with improved missiles such as Kheibar Shekan, is making interception even harder. This means that Tehran will bargain hard for concessions in its talks with Washington.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern  History from the University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post America’s New Headache: How Iran’s Kheibar Shekan Missiles Are Challenging U.S. Air Defense Systems appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.