From the Editors
In our cover article this month, Matthew Levitt examines potential retaliation by Iran against the U.S. homeland following its 12-day war with Israel and U.S. airstrikes against three of its nuclear facilities. “Iran may seek to carry out reprisal attacks in the United States, as it already has tried to do in Europe, targeting U.S. officials, Iranian dissidents, Israelis, or Jews,” he writes. “If there were ever a time Iran would want to activate its homeland option, this would be it.” Drawing on past cases of Iranian plots in the United States and elsewhere, Levitt outlines “the primary pathways available to Iran to conduct or enable an attack inside the United States,” including “deploying Iranian agents, criminal surrogates, terrorist proxies, or actively seeking to inspire lone offenders to carry out attacks within the homeland.”
Our interview is with James Stack of Kansas State University and director of the Great Plains Diagnostic Network, who we asked about vulnerabilities to the U.S. agricultural sector following news earlier this summer that several individuals had been arrested for smuggling “a potential agroterrorism weapon”—Fusarium graminearum—into the United States. “I didn’t think that was a great pathogen to use as a bioweapon,” he explains. “But that event may be less about Fusarium graminearum and more about finding the best way to sneak an organism into the country.”
In this month’s commentary, Nicholas Clark considers the appropriate role for generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the counterterrorism mission. He argues that rather than relying too heavily on generative AI in CT efforts, the focus should shift “toward enhancing education in probabilistic reasoning … and building robust data governance infrastructures.” “In an environment where adaptability, innovation, and judgment can determine life or death,” he writes, “overreliance on generative AI may do more harm than good. … In many cases, generative AI is a distraction and should only be used within a disciplined, use-case-driven approach, one that leverages narrow efficiencies while preserving the uniquely human strengths that remain irreplaceable in counterterrorism work.”
Finally, Jason Warner examines China’s new counterterrorism ambitions in Africa. He finds that whether engaging in U.N. peacekeeping operations, establishing overseas bases, conducting bilateral and multilateral training drills, or providing police training, China has proceeded with “caution, amity, respect, non-interference, and deference to African partners.” Warner writes that China’s “risk-averse, economic-first approach to CT may well prove to be too meager—all carrot and no stick—to deal with the brutality of the current African terrorism scene. At a certain point, China will likely have to cross a perilous bridge: take bolder, riskier, and more muscular and militarized approaches to CT, or stay the course, be perceived as weak, and ultimately, likely be ineffective.” Either way, “for the United States, China’s rise as an aspiring counterterrorism force in Africa should cause concern,” he concludes.
Don Rassler and Kristina Hummel, Editors-in-Chief
