EXPERT INSIGHT – In the waning days of 2024, The Cipher Brief asked members of our expert network to look to the year ahead, and identify an area of particular concern in the national or global security space that they believe bears watching in 2025.
Our specific ask: What in your view is the most important issue, problem or region to watch in the year ahead?
It’s a tough question of course – in particular given the array of dynamic issues facing the U.S. and the world, as the new year looms. Some of our respondents gave brief essays, identifying more than one issue; others answered in a single sentence.
It’s not a comprehensive list by any means, but their answers spanned much of the globe. We offer their responses here – as part of our year-end coverage, and fodder for thought as we prepare to meet 2025, and whatever it may bring.
McLaughlin: I think the most important issue for the year is whether there will be a settlement of the Ukraine war. If a formula can be found that gives Ukraine security and neutralizes Russia’s aggression, it would take much of the steam out of the so-called “Axis of Autocracy” (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran), and potentially diminish the threatening aspect of these four countries collaborating so closely.
Lt. Gen. Clapper: What happens to the national security capabilities of this country, during the next administration.
Goff: The West Bank – or Judea and Samaria, as Israeli officials and U.S. Ambassador-designate Mike Huckabee refer to it – remains a source of not just simmering tension between Israelis and Arabs, but also a potential flashpoint that could reignite the now reduced violence between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel and Hamas and even Israel and Iran. Increased acts of violence by radical Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, in tandem with overly aggressive security operations by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories that result in heavy collateral casualties, could cause another Palestinian uprising that would have negative impact throughout the region. Along with the aforementioned violence, Jordan would be destabilized, Egypt would be forced to act, and the still-on-hold process of normalization between Israel and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be further derailed.
McCarthy: In 2025, the information ecosystem, which no longer can be easily binned into “traditional media” and “social media” but includes any platform, technology or institution where people consume information, will be increasingly destabilized by AI-generated false information. This will result in even more blurring of the lines between fact and fiction, further deepening societal divides, make us an even bigger target to foreign malign influence, and continue to erode trust in institutions. This growing challenge will complicate our handling of all the other issues we will face in the year ahead, to include rising geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, climate change, technology regulation and cybersecurity threats.
The solution is a coordinated approach across government, technology, media organizations, academia and other non profits focused on empowering consumers with access to quality information.
Fishwick: The most important region to watch is - the United States. By this I don’t mean that us Brits and other Europeans should panic about the new administration, just that Trump means a new game in town. All the current pressure-point regional threats – the Middle East, Ukraine, Taiwan etc – will be changed not by local actors but by the Trump administration and local actors’ responses. The only question this side of the pond since November 5 has been, What will Trump do?
I think we are going to have to get used to a different way of doing global geopolitical business. We are at war with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Serious diplomacy is now about great-power deals and is not conducted by foreign offices or state departments. The UN looks to me weaker and more discredited than ever. The wars take different forms with different adversaries. I expect a continued realization that we must get on with China, while fighting for our interests and against Chinese threats to them. Trump may decide that we also need to get on with Russia, even Iran, but it will be on his terms. I don’t know what those terms will be or whether Russia and Iran will accept them. They would be wise to do so.
Will we see ISIS 2.0? It looks more likely now than it did a month ago. We need a clear focus on what our interests are in the Middle East. They are not served by lecturing Israel on how it is allowed to defend itself but by recognizing where the threats to western democracy come from. In the Middle East, they come from Iran and transnational terrorism.
Gen. Petraeus: While the most important issue/region is clearly China and the Indo-Pacific, the biggest challenge ahead is the greater number of simultaneous challenges and the greater complexity of some of them – China, the Mideast, Russia-Ukraine – than at any time in our recent history, at least since the end of the Cold War.
Weissgold: My professional focus has always been outward, not domestic, so the comfortable place for me to talk about concerns for 2025 would be to elaborate on the effects of shifting global dynamics; the economic, military and diplomatic challenges from China; or our expanding cyber vulnerabilities.
I am stepping out of that comfort zone, however, to focus on a longer-term domestic threat – the diminishing willingness in our society to challenge our own thinking. CIA analysts are taught that an openness to other perspectives is a defining feature of good analysis and good analysts. Having colleagues challenge what you think and share data you might have missed improves the rigor and reach of your assessments.
A lack of intellectual curiosity and willingness to search out and consider differing views may ultimately be the greatest threat we face. And it is one that government cannot fix. We need to take on the responsibility as individuals of demanding it of ourselves and our leaders. As a society, we must become much more active consumers of information, looking for disconfirming data and probing the results of AI for bias and inaccuracies. If we are going to be able to identify and mitigate future threats, we must have the flexibility and the humility to revise judgments when new information dictates.
Thompson: With Iran down and their axis of resistance shattered across multiple fronts (which include a long list of successful kinetic operations worthy of a Hollywood screenplay), the regime may feel that enriching uranium to 90% and weaponizing it is in their best interest. They have ramped up production and blown past previous enrichment agreements. The regime would still need to conduct testing and likely want to develop an arsenal because this would provide them their own deterrence in the form of a counter strike capability. This will surely take time to accomplish, but the narrative that Iran would struggle with the delivery mechanism is misguided. Their advancement in both liquid-fuel and solid-fuel missile systems and work on multi-stage rockets highlights platforms which can travel thousands of kilometers.
Nakhleh: Unfortunately, several issues and regions will be problematic in 2025. The most important? AI and cyber, especially their use in warfare – involving hard and soft targeting, and the growing number of non-state actors abusing AI and cyber.
The most important regions? While it's tempting to focus on the Middle East and Ukraine/Russia, I would place China and Northeast Asia, especially the Korean Peninsula, at the top of the list.
Ambassador DeTrani: Although U.S.-China relations and China's potential military action against Taiwan and, also, in the South China Sea are geopolitically the most important issues to follow, the most immediate involves the Korean Peninsula. During the next year, it's more likely than it’s been in a long time that there will be conflict on the Korean Peninsula between the North and South. An emboldened North Korea is now allied with Russia with a mutual defense treaty committing each to come to the defense of the other if attacked. North Korea during 2025 will take provocative moves on the DMZ and the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea. South Korea will respond to these provocations, and that may usher in the beginning of war on the Korean Peninsula.
Given Russia's commitment to provide military support to North Korea, and the U.S. and the United Nations Joint Command's military assurances to South Korea, this conflict, initially starting slow and in one or two controllable areas, could escalate quickly, with North Korea threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons and South Korea, given its extended nuclear deterrence commitments from the U.S., prepared to respond in kind.
But Russia will be there for North Korea. China will call for peace talks, but will not use any of its leverage with North Korea, knowing Russia is prepared to fight to ensure the survival of the Kim regime. If, however, Russia does not abide by its mutual defense treaty commitments with North Korea, China will use its leverage with Pyongyang, Washington and the United Nations to ensure the war on the Korean Peninsula does not escalate into war between China and the U.S.
Doyle: The deadly wars between Israel and Tehran-backed Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Without effective intervention, Iran will help Hezbollah rebuild, it will help Hamas resurge, and it will help Houthi proxy forces keep disrupting western supply chains that transport energy and other goods via the Red Sea.
Meanwhile, the stakes of Russia’s indefensible wars and occupations of eastern Ukraine and South Ossetia in Georgia will only grow in 2025. Moscow flatly rejects that NATO is a collective defensive alliance; its actions since 2008 show that it can and will wage war at all costs to prevent Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova from joining NATO. No assurances from Washington or Brussels have softened Russia’s views or resolve. Sanctions have been important but ineffective because the U.S. and EU left far too many loopholes in place and Russia hid valuable and vast assets outside of Russia. U.S. and NATO arms sales to Ukraine and Georgia have been vital, but wars require speed and agility. U.S. and NATO weapons took too damn long to arrive in Ukraine, and they came with far too many restrictions.
What’s done is done; and Ukraine has fought valiantly with U.S. and NATO's support. Looking ahead, if Russia manages to retain ill-gotten territory in Ukraine and Georgia, the sanctity of sovereignty will erode before our eyes. What will prevent Moscow from faking new threats and using force and destructive cyber-attacks against near abroad Baltic neighbors, nations like Poland and Finland, and the U.S.? I have studied this issue extensively. Putin’s playbook is eerily similar to that which Hitler used between 1938 and 1940: propaganda, unproven assaults on ethnicity and religious affiliations, fake appeasement agreements, a bloodless annexation, and lightning fast invasions and occupations. If the next administration is not bold and fast enough, 2025 could make the 2014-2024 decade look like the prequel for the next Russian invasion.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief.
