Follow us on social

2022-08-31t203529z_1860405723_rc2h7w9w10bm_rtrmadp_3_pakistan-weather-floods-scaled

Climate change is a national security issue

The flooding in Pakistan is far more destructive than most conventional threats. It’s time for the world to take notice.

Analysis | Global Crises

For twenty years, the United States and its close allies have focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan largely due to the threat of terrorism. But the climate change show of force unleashed on Pakistan this August should raise alarms in capitals the world over. Its destructive power dwarfs the conventional threats that preoccupy world leaders. 

Immediate aid is a welcome first step. This week, the United States announced that it is providing $30,000,000 USD to Pakistan for flood relief —  still less than the $70 million pledged in 2010, but not insignificant. But this must be accompanied by serious structural reforms in the West and coordination with frontline countries most immediately impacted by climate change. If not, Washington is merely paying interest on a fast accruing climate time bomb. The effects of climate change on North America and Europe are noteworthy but not yet severe enough to wake us from our collective slumber on this issue. The horrors faced by the people of Pakistan should be our wake-up call.

Ideally, we should assist the people of Pakistan out of a sense of collective global responsibility for a climate change crisis that is largely driven by the world’s most industrialized nations. But if altruism and humanitarian incentives are not enough, then we should take action for our own security. 

Pakistan’s 2010 floods occurred in the backdrop of the U.S. surge in Afghanistan. This is important for two reasons: A large U.S. troop presence next door made the logistics of helping out easier, and Washington had an incentive to improve ties with Pakistan. But there are still many reasons for Washington to be concerned about the stability of Pakistan and other countries disproportionately impacted by climate change. The current floods in Pakistan have directly affected over 33 million people and that number is climbing. Tent cities have popped up along the sides of highways and entire communities have been erased from the map. This will have troubling long-term effects that extend for years to come. Crops were destroyed, which will assuredly increase food insecurity. Mass migration to urban centers will place increased stress on infrastructure already teetering on the edge. Extremists and non-state actors may capitalize on resentment felt by the displaced. As the worst effects of climate change become irreversible, these events will spread across the world.

The hard choices of what to do about climate change will always occur in the backdrop of seemingly high priority threats and goals. This is what makes climate change so dangerous. It requires collective and sustained global action — something that has historically been difficult to achieve. It is time that we accept that climate change presents an existential threat to life as we know it and is already here.


A flood victim wades through flood water, following rains and floods during the monsoon season in Bajara village, Sehwan, Pakistan, August 31, 2022. REUTERS/Yasir Rajput
Analysis | Global Crises
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.