While Russia and Iran have deepened cooperation in recent years—especially through military-technical exchanges and shared opposition to Western influence—the Kremlin has signaled that it would not be obligated to support Iran militarily in the event of an external assault, despite the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in 2021. This stance reflects a careful Russian balancing act and raises questions about the credibility of its strategic commitments, the fragility of bilateral trust, and the limits of Moscow’s great-power ambitions.

Russia often prefers non-binding or vague commitments in its bilateral agreements. The strategic partnership with Iran contains no mutual defense clause, unlike NATO’s Article 5. This gives the Kremlin maximum flexibility to avoid entanglement in direct military conflicts that do not serve its core interests.

Russia is deeply stretched militarily due to its ongoing war in Ukraine and other global operations. A direct confrontation with the U.S. or Israel over Iran would be strategically disastrous, opening another front that Russia cannot afford.

Despite tensions, Russia maintains a delicate but functional relationship with Israel, especially over Syrian airspace deconfliction. A full military commitment to Iran could fracture this balance and alienate wealthy Gulf partners like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, with whom Russia coordinates within OPEC+ and broader energy diplomacy.

Implications for Russia’s Reputation as a Security Partner

1. Erosion of Trust

Russia’s reluctance to offer Iran concrete military backing may undermine perceptions of Moscow as a reliable strategic partner, especially for countries facing Western military pressure.

2. Pattern of One-Sided Alliances

Other states—such as Armenia, Serbia, or Central Asian republics—may interpret Russia’s stance as a warning: even strong rhetoric and partnership agreements don’t guarantee military protection. This can lead to diplomatic hedging or movement toward other security guarantors (e.g., China, Turkey, or even NATO).

3. Damage to Multilateral Initiatives

Iran may rethink its engagement with Russia in multilateral formats such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or BRICS, where Tehran has sought deeper alignment. The lack of military assurances could reduce Moscow’s appeal as a pillar of alternative international order.

Impact on Bilateral Relations with Iran

1. Growing Asymmetry

The Russia-Iran relationship is becoming increasingly asymmetric: Iran provides drones and military tech for use in Ukraine, while Russia offers little concrete protection. This breeds resentment and could limit Iranian cooperation over time.

2. Strategic Recalibration in Tehran

Iran may seek to diversify its partnerships, increasing outreach to China or accelerating its domestic military build-up. It may also question the sincerity of Russia’s anti-Western stance if Moscow continues to maintain equivocal relations with Israel or Arab rivals.

3. Tactical vs. Strategic Alliance

Russia and Iran may remain tactical partners—cooperating in Syria or against Western sanctions—but will struggle to build a deep strategic alliance without mutual defense assurances.

Consequences for Russia’s Broader Diplomacy

1. Weakening Soft Power in the Global South

Many non-Western states view Russia as a counterweight to Western hegemony. If Russia is seen as unwilling to “walk the walk” when allies are threatened, it undermines that narrative.

2. Credibility Gap in Security Promises

If Moscow’s strategic partnerships don’t include clear commitments or response plans, countries facing security threats may turn toward China’s rising defense networks or Western security umbrellas for protection. Russia’s refusal to commit to Iran’s defense in a future war exposes the limits of its power projection and the transactional nature of its alliances. While pragmatism may protect short-term interests, the long-term consequence is a reduction in diplomatic trust, a decline in influence among vulnerable partners, and the reinforcement of Russia’s image as a selective and self-interested power, rather than a dependable global actor.

Strategic Ambiguity: Russia’s Reluctance to Defend Iran and the Limits of Its Global Commitments

Introduction The strategic relationship between Russia and Iran has drawn considerable international attention in recent years. Both countries have found common ground in opposing Western dominance, particularly U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and Eurasia. However, Russia’s refusal to provide a concrete military guarantee to Iran in the event of an external assault—despite the 2021 Strategic Partnership Agreement—exposes the asymmetry and limits of this alliance. This paper examines why the Kremlin has taken this position, what it signals about Russia’s credibility as a strategic partner, and how it will impact both the bilateral relationship with Iran and Russia’s broader diplomatic posture.

I. Russia’s Strategic Ambiguity: A Calculated Choice

1. Non-Binding Nature of the Strategic Partnership Agreement Unlike formal military alliances, such as NATO or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Russia-Iran Strategic Partnership Agreement lacks enforceable defense clauses. This is a deliberate feature of Russian foreign policy, designed to preserve flexibility and avoid entanglement in conflicts that could escalate beyond Moscow’s control or interests.

2. Avoiding Strategic Overextension Russia is already heavily engaged in Ukraine, managing its military presence in Syria, and maintaining influence across Africa and Central Asia. Committing to Iran’s defense would risk overextending Russian military capabilities and provoke direct confrontation with the United States, Israel, or their allies. The Kremlin prefers to retain maneuverability rather than becoming entangled in another high-stakes theater.

3. Balancing Regional Relationships Russia has cultivated a complex network of relationships in the Middle East, including with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Taking a firm pro-Iranian military stance could jeopardize these ties, particularly given Israel’s opposition to Iranian entrenchment in Syria and its ongoing military operations against Iranian-backed forces.

II. Implications for Russia’s Reputation and Global Commitments

1. Perceived Unreliability Russia’s unwillingness to defend a key partner like Iran raises doubts among other allies and partners regarding the reliability of Russian security guarantees. Countries that have previously relied on Moscow for support—such as Armenia or Belarus—may now question the depth of Russia’s commitments.

2. Shift Toward Transactional Diplomacy The Kremlin’s position underscores a broader shift toward transactional diplomacy: engaging in partnerships for immediate strategic benefit without long-term security commitments. This approach undermines the trust necessary for sustained alliances and can erode Moscow’s influence in regions where competitors like China are offering more concrete alternatives.

3. Challenges to Russia’s Soft Power in the Global South Many states in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia view Russia as a counterweight to Western interventionism. However, if Russia is perceived as unreliable or self-serving, its soft power appeal will wane. This could lead to a strategic realignment toward other powers or multilateral institutions.

III. Effects on Russia-Iran Bilateral Relations

1. Rising Iranian Frustration Iran, which has supplied Russia with military drones and technology during the Ukraine conflict, may view Russia’s reluctance to commit as a betrayal. Tehran may begin to reassess the balance of the relationship, seeking more leverage or reducing cooperation in areas like Syria or arms sales.

2. Asymmetric Partnership and Strategic Drift The imbalance in the relationship—with Iran providing more tangible support to Russia than it receives in return—could lead to a gradual drift. Iran may pivot more toward China or attempt to assert greater autonomy in regional affairs, reducing Russian influence.

3. Tactical Cooperation Without Strategic Depth Despite tensions, Russia and Iran are likely to maintain tactical cooperation in Syria, energy coordination, and circumvention of sanctions. However, the absence of mutual defense commitments limits the depth and resilience of their alliance.

IV. Broader Consequences for Regional and Global Politics

1. Decline in Russian Mediation Credibility Russia’s role as a mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts depends on its perceived neutrality and reliability. Its unwillingness to support Iran militarily could diminish its clout in future negotiations or multilateral efforts.

2. Incentive for Alternative Alliances Iran and other nations may increasingly look to China, regional organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), or even new blocs for security and economic cooperation. This could reduce Russia’s influence in institutions where it once played a leading role.3. Strategic Vacuum and Greater Instability By not offering a firm commitment, Russia risks creating a strategic vacuum in the event of a major crisis involving Iran. This could lead to greater instability in the Persian Gulf, heighten sectarian tensions, and draw in other global powers with unpredictable outcomes.

The surprise appointment of a hard-line critic of Jan. 6 protesters to lead the FBI’s Washington Field Office has set the conservative political world ablaze and put new FBI Director Kash Patel in the line of fire from a vocal group of President Donald J. Trump supporters.

News first broke April 4 in the New York Times that Steven J. Jensen was named assistant director in charge of the most powerful of the FBI’s 56 field offices. Conservative critics and pundits who were expecting to see the FBI gutted and reformed under President Trump took the news of Jensen’s appointment hard.

Jensen 'built the construct for the January 6 witch hunt.'

After the Times published an article about Jensen’s appointment, the Gateway Pundit called it “fake news.” On April 6, Blaze News confirmed Jensen’s appointment to the key FBI job. Debate raged on social media on whether Jensen’s appointment was real and why the FBI had not made a formal announcement of the promotion. Such major appointments are typically announced via a news release.

“He was a key figure in this domestic terror push against January Sixers, according to testimony before the House,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “He treated them all as terrorists and was one of the key instigators in pushing the narrative within the bureaucracy that these folks needed to be jailed and ferreted out.”

The FBI’s National Press Office declined to comment on Jensen’s appointment and referred Blaze News to the homepage for the Washington Field Office, where Jensen is now listed as the assistant director in charge.

Jensen was associated with some of the worst rights abuses at the FBI, according to Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project.

“Steve Jensen should not have a job at the FBI,” Howell told Blaze News. “He was on the bleeding edge of some of the worst abuses at the FBI. The coordinated pushback on those calling him out is unfortunate, but it’s already had to backtrack on key points.

“For instance, first it was that Jensen was not promoted,” Howell said. “That turned out to be unequivocally false. Now we’re at the stage of people pretending it’s a good thing that he was promoted.”

George Hill, retired FBI national security intelligence supervisor, called Jensen the “Tomás de Torquemada of the J6 round-up of ‘domestic terrorists.’” Torquemada was the first grand inquisitor of Spain in the 15th century.

In testimony before Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Hill said he took part in regular phone conferences led by Jensen and former FBI Assistant Director Steven D’Antuono.

New FBI Director Kash Patel. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

“So you know, this is a conversation that took place almost two years ago,” Hill said in a private transcribed interview. “But the Philadelphia office said, ‘Well, there’s no evidence of any kind of, you know, violent leanings or insurrectionist leanings,’ to which Steve Jensen said, ‘You know, I don’t give a blank, they’re godd***ed terrorists and we’re going to round them all up.’”

Hill said as chief of the Domestic Terrorism Operations Section at FBI headquarters, Jensen hosted regular conference calls that began two days after the Jan. 6 protests.

“This conference call, everybody could dial into it,” Hill said on the April 7 episode of "The Kyle Seraphin Show." “So this is going into all the fusion centers where you have chiefs of police dialing in. You have members of the state police usually up to the rank of colonel participating, and all these people have direct access to people on the governors’ staff, the mayors’ staff.

“So this information, this narrative of how our country almost fell, was going into the executive mansions of every state in the country and every mayor’s residence throughout the country on a twice-daily basis,” Hill said.

Jensen “built the construct for the January 6 witch hunt,” Hill said. “After January 6, he had a ready-made buffet of never-ending domestic terrorists to go after, and he went at them very aggressively.”

'It’s absolutely indefensible.'

Hill was the subject of blowback on X over his testimony, which he said was never called into question prior to news about Jensen surfacing on April 4.

“That my name is about to get dragged is a diversion from the facts that are already in evidence that are unassailable, that Steven Jensen was the organizer of the entire J6 roundup, from the identification of subjects through the prosecution,” Hill said.

Text of an email circulated on X April 6 by Blaze News confirmed the appointment of Jensen as head of the Washington Field Office. The March 28 email said Jensen would assume the role on March 31.

“While this came rather unexpectedly as I recently was asked to serve as the acting Operations Director for the National Security Branch, I firmly believe in the philosophy of servant leadership and service over self,” Jensen wrote in a statement released by Phillip Bates, acting assistant director in charge of the Mission Support Division at WFO. “They are the driving forces of who I am and how I lead, and I am renewing my commitment to these principles as I transition into this new leadership role at WFO.”

Jensen has been with the FBI for 19 years, most recently as special agent in charge of the FBI’s field office in Columbia, S.C. He was chief of the Domestic Terrorism Operations Section at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., from April 2020 through October 2021 and had a key role in the investigation of the Jan. 6 protests at the U.S. Capitol.

The news of Jensen’s elevation to run the Washington Field Office thundered across conservative social media.

“I’m going to call out any fraud who tries to suck up to Kash by defending the Steve Jensen promotion,” former Jan. 6 defendant William Pope wrote on X. “The man hunted down J6ers, destroyed American families, and labeled us terrorists. It’s absolutely indefensible.”

Pope added: “Jensen gets the gold mine. J6ers get the shaft,” and said, “You can’t drain the swamp by promoting the swamp.”

Members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation SWAT team patrol the Longworth House Office Building on Jan. 6, 2021.Photo by Erin Scott/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Howell said that U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the powerful House Committee on the Judiciary, was behind the pressure to name Jensen to the FBI post. Jordan denied the assertion through an unnamed spokesman, according to journalist Breanna Morello.

Former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend, who was suspended without pay after raising concerns about the level of FBI force used to round up even misdemeanor Jan. 6 suspects, called Jensen’s appointment “disappointing.”

“Steven Jensen exposed himself as partisan when he weaponized the FBI to persecute Americans over January 6,” Friend told Blaze News.

Former Jan. 6 defendant Jennifer Heinl protested Jensen’s promotion, recounting how the FBI “completely destroyed my life.”

“I’m one of the so-called terrorists that he didn’t give a damn about,” she wrote on X. “A mom from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with no criminal background who was let in the open doors on the Senate side by Capitol officers. For 45 minutes, I walked around calling family members to let them know I was OK. Yeah, I was such a danger that you waited months to come get me and then after that completely destroyed my life.”

Fitton said he’s troubled at the lack of discussion so far about reforming the FBI and Department of Justice.

“For all I know, he’s a good guy and we’re all misinterpreting it,” Fitton said, “but what I am not seeing out of the FBI yet and what I’m not seeing out of the Justice Department yet is a radical remaking or even talking about it that we’ve seen with USAID, that we’ve seen with the Department of Education. There’s nothing the FBI is doing that another federal agency or local or state law enforcement can’t do.”

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, apparently responding to growing impatience for change but without directly referencing the controversy, asked for continued forbearance as the process unfolds.

"When you see something happen, and the entire story isn’t public, and the underlying facts aren’t all public, it may appear counterintuitive to our reform agenda. I promise you, it’s not an accident," he posted to X on Sunday evening.

"I realize asking you to 'trust me' is a waste of time. Watch what happens, continue to demand results, be cautious of narrative 'traps,' let time put the puzzle pieces together, and what we’re doing will make sense. I see and hear you and your feedback."

Editor's note: This article has been updated to include a statement from FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DOGE’s days appear to be numbered.

Elon Musk recently suggested that he will be done with his work in the near future. President Donald Trump told reporters this week that “at some point, he’s going to be going back” to running his companies. As far as the Department of Government Efficiency, Trump said “it will end”.

All of that talk was before Musk faced a setback Tuesday in Wisconsin, where voters rejected his choice for a state Supreme Court candidate despite more than $21 million in personal donations and his campaign appearance over the weekend. There are more problems for the billionaire entrepreneur at Tesla, his electric automaker, which saw a 13 percent drop in sales in the first three months of the year.

Now, Trump has told members of his Cabinet and other close contacts that Musk will soon step back from his government role, Politico reported on Wednesday, citing three people close to Trump.

A White House source told Reuters that Musk's investors want him to return to his companies, that his work with DOGE would be done within 130 days, and that he had communicated that to the president multiple times.

Musk was not leaving before his DOGE work was done "and no one is pushing him out", the source added.

The White House has not disclosed any clear timeline for closing down DOGE, and the government cost-cutting organisation was never supposed to become a permanent fixture in Washington. But it could be reaching a conclusion faster than anticipated. DOGE was originally intended to operate until July 4, 2026.

Now there are signs that it already is winding down. DOGE employees have been shifted to various federal agencies, which are supposed to take the lead on cutting costs. Government-wide layoffs are underway to accomplish some of the goals laid out by Musk and Trump.

“We think probably over the next two or three months, we’ll be pretty much satisfied with the people that are working hard and want to be members of the administration,” Trump said last week.

The potential end of DOGE does not mean Trump will stop shaking up Washington. But it appears the administration’s efforts will be entering a new phase that is less focused on Musk, whose chainsaw-wielding work as a presidential adviser made him a political lightning rod.

DOGE was initially envisioned as an independent advisory panel, with Musk sharing leadership with Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur. Ramaswamy dropped out and is running for Ohio governor, and DOGE became part of the government. It was stocked with Musk's allies, who were dispatched throughout the bureaucracy to cancel contracts, access sensitive data and push for cuts. 

Musk presumably has a ticking clock on his tenure. He was hired as a special government employee, which means he can only work 130 days in a 365-day time period.

“I think we will have accomplished most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame,” Musk told Bret Baier of Fox News on March 27. So far DOGE is well short of that target, according to its own calculations, which have been criticized as inflated and inaccurate. 

Musk did not commit to leaving the administration by any particular date, and it is unclear how the administration is tracking Musk’s time. On May 30, it will be 130 days since Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

Trump told reporters on Monday in the Oval Office that “I’d keep him as long as I could keep him” and “he’s a very talented guy”.

The Republican president was known for explosive breakups with top advisers during his first term, but anyone hoping for such a split with Musk has been disappointed.

“I think he’s amazing, but I also think he’s got a big company to run,” Trump said. “And so, at some point, he’s going to be going back.”

Asked if DOGE would continue without Musk, Trump demurred. He said Cabinet officials have worked closely with Musk and may keep some of the DOGE people at their agencies.

“But at a certain point I think it will end,” Trump said.

Musk's poll numbers lag behind Trump's, which Democrats believe they were able to use to their advantage in Wisconsin. 

Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel, who Musk supported, and ensured the state Supreme Court's liberal majority. 

In the closing days of that campaign, Musk described the race as “important for the future of civilisation”. He struck a different tone afterward.

“I expected to lose, but there is value to losing a piece for a positional gain,” Musk wrote on X at 3:13am.

(FRANCE 24 with AP and Reuters)

Lockheed Martin has secured a contract worth up to US$4.94 billion from the U.S. Army to produce Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), which are set to replace the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

The missiles, designed to be compatible with the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), a truck-mounted rocket artillery system, and the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), are poised to enhance the U.S. military’s long-range precision strike capabilities while offering allies a powerful tool for deterrence and defense.

“Lockheed Martin is committed to delivering this deterrent capability in support of the Army’s vision for a lethal and resilient force,” said Carolyn Orzechowski, vice president of precision fire launchers and missiles at Lockheed Martin.

“Our team remains focused on advancing the production at speed and scale, ensuring the warfighter receives this critical capability to maintain peace through strength.”

The PrSM, with a range exceeding 499 kilometers, features an open systems architecture allowing incremental upgrades, including longer-range variants and diverse explosive payloads.

Structured as an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract, this agreement provides the Army with flexibility in ordering units as battlefield needs evolve.

The announcement comes amid a shifting global security landscape, where long-range precision munitions have become pivotal in modern warfare.

To understand the significance of the PrSM, it’s worth examining the legacy of its predecessor, the ATACMS, particularly its role in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, and how the PrSM is set to build on that foundation to reshape battlefield dynamics.

The ATACMS, first introduced in the 1990s, has been a cornerstone of U.S. long-range precision strike capabilities.

With a range of up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) and compatibility with both HIMARS and MLRS platforms, it provided the U.S. Army with a reliable means to strike high-value targets deep behind enemy lines. However, it wasn’t until its deployment in Ukraine in 2023 that the ATACMS truly demonstrated its transformative potential in a contemporary conflict.

For months, Ukraine lobbied the United States to supply ATACMS to counter Russia’s invasion, which began in February 2022.

The Biden administration initially hesitated, citing concerns over escalation and the strain on U.S. stockpiles. However, by October 2023, the U.S. relented, delivering a limited number of ATACMS to Ukraine. The impact was immediate and profound.

On October 17, 2023, Ukrainian forces used ATACMS to strike two Russian airfields in occupied territory, reportedly destroying multiple helicopters, an air control tower, and ammunition depots. This attack disrupted Russia’s air operations and showcased the missile’s ability to penetrate deep into contested zones.

1st Big Warship Since USSR’s Fall, Russia Is Building A Gigantic Vessel That Could Replace Moskova: Reports

The ATACMS’ success in Ukraine stemmed from several key attributes. Its GPS-guided precision allowed Ukrainian forces to target critical infrastructure with minimal collateral damage, while its 300-kilometer range enabled strikes beyond the reach of most Russian counter-battery systems.

The missile’s compatibility with the HIMARS platform—a lightweight, mobile launcher already in Ukraine’s arsenal—further amplified its effectiveness. HIMARS, with its ability to “shoot and scoot,” could fire an ATACMS and relocate before Russian forces could respond, frustrating Moscow’s attempts to neutralize the threat.

The ATACMS created a strategic headache for the Russian military. It forced a reevaluation of defensive postures, removing high-value assets like airfields, command centers, and logistics hubs from the front lines.

However, the ATACMS was not without limitations. Its single-missile pod configuration limited the volume of fire from each launcher, and its 300-kilometer range, while impressive, was insufficient to reach some of Russia’s deepest strategic targets, such as military bases in Crimea or beyond.

Moreover, the aging design—some missiles in the U.S. inventory date back over 30 years—raised questions about reliability and sustainability in prolonged conflicts. These shortcomings highlighted the need for a next-generation system, paving the way for the PrSM.

Iran’s “Futuristic Weapon” Rattles Pentagon! Has It Leapfrogged China, Russia & The US In Plasma Tech?

The PrSM: Building On The ATACMS Foundation

The Precision Strike Missile represents a leap forward from the ATACMS, addressing its predecessor’s limitations while introducing new capabilities tailored to modern warfare.

With a range exceeding 499 kilometers, the PrSM’s reach is greater than the ATACMS’, allowing it to strike targets deeper in enemy territory. Its thinner, sleeker design enables two missiles to fit in a single HIMARS or MLRS pod, doubling the firepower per launch compared to the ATACMS’ one-missile configuration.

The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) program originated from the Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) initiative. In 2016, Raytheon Technologies proposed a new replacement for the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

That same year, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) within the U.S. Department of Defense approved the LRPF missile’s Milestone A test and evaluation master plan. The program advanced to the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase in March 2017.

It’s F-35 vs Eurofighter ‘Showdown’ In The UK As Critics Argue U.S. Jets Could Hurt Typhoon, 6th-Gen GCAP

Under the TMRR phase, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon were awarded contracts to develop prototypes and conduct flight tests. The program was renamed PrSM to eliminate confusion while forming the Army’s Long-Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team (LRPF CFT).

Raytheon introduced its DeepStrike missile as a next-generation solution and carried out a static test of its rocket motor in April 2019, followed by an advanced warhead test in May 2019. However, due to technical difficulties during component testing, Raytheon was unable to conduct flight tests and withdrew from the PrSM competition.

In August 2021, the Australian Defence Forces and the U.S. Army signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to collaborate on developing precision missile capabilities. Australia contributed US$51.48 million to the US$667.04 million PrSM program.

A New Era Of Deterrence and Dominance

The PrSM’s introduction will have far-reaching implications for U.S. and allied forces, particularly in contested regions like Eastern Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East. In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the PrSM can amplify Ukraine’s ability to disrupt Russian operations.

A 499-kilometer range could bring key Russian bases in Crimea and western Russia within reach, forcing Moscow to disperse its forces further and expend resources on additional air defenses. The doubled loadout would have allowed Ukrainian HIMARS units to deliver more devastating salvos, overwhelming Russian countermeasures and increasing the likelihood of mission success.

Against a peer adversary like Russia, the PrSM’s extended range and precision could shift the balance in a NATO-Russia confrontation.

Taiwan Gets Its 1st F-16 Viper From The U.S.; Does It Stand A Chance Against J-20 Mighty Dragons?

By putting Russian assets at greater risk, it strengthens deterrence, discouraging aggression along NATO’s eastern flank. The missile’s compatibility with HIMARS and MLRS systems already fielded by allies like Poland, Romania, and the UK enhances coalition interoperability, enabling unified responses to threats.

The PrSM’s anti-ship variant adds another dimension. In a maritime conflict, such as a potential clash in the South China Sea, it could target enemy vessels from land-based launchers, complicating an adversary’s naval strategy. This capability aligns with the U.S. military’s Joint All-Domain Operations concept, integrating land, sea, and air forces to dominate contested spaces.

Challenges & Considerations

Despite its promise, the PrSM faces challenges. Scaling production to meet demand—reflected in the US$4.94 billion IDIQ contract—will test Lockheed Martin’s supply chain, especially amid global shortages of critical components like semiconductors.

The transition from ATACMS to PrSM also requires training and logistical adjustments for U.S. and allied forces, a process that could take years. Moreover, the missile’s cost—estimated at US$3.5 million per unit—may limit procurement numbers, particularly for smaller allies.

On the battlefield, adversaries like Russia and China are unlikely to stand still. Both nations are developing hypersonic weapons and advanced air defenses, which could challenge the PrSM’s effectiveness. Countering these systems will require ongoing investment in electronic warfare and seeker technology to ensure the missile remains viable.

The PrSM builds on the ATACMS’ legacy as a game changer, offering greater range, firepower, and adaptability. Its deployment will enhance U.S. and allied deterrence, providing a credible counter to peer adversaries while supporting partners in active conflicts.

• Via: ET News Desk
• Mail us at: editor (at) <a href="http://eurasiantimes.com" rel="nofollow">eurasiantimes.com</a>