Good morning,

Welcome to the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s look at some updates from this past weekend.

Reporting Period: 30 January — 3 February 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

German Parliament Rejects Migration Reform, Worries Of Far-Right Collaboration

Summary
On 31 January, members of the Bundestag narrowly voted down legislation that would drastically reform migration to Germany. The decision is drawing criticism due to the CDU/CSU leader refusing to reject the AfD party’s support on the legislation. Germany is scheduled for snap elections on 23 February 2025.

Findings

• Background: In 2024, Germany experienced multiple deadly attacks by migrants and asylum seekers. In particular, a September 2024 knife attack in Solingen led to unprecedented border checks and, allegedly, AfD election victories in Germany’s eastern states.

• Bundestag Session: The CDU/CSU Union party led calls to reform Germany’s migration practices. Chancellor Scholz (SPD) says the proposed legislation violates EU law — a position which has sparked debate about EU supranationalism overshadowing German (or European) unilateral sovereignty.
  Merz (CDU/CSU Union) called migration reform “necessary.”
  Scholz called the vote an “unforgivable mistake” due to the AfD supporting it, suggesting a break in the “Brandmauer.”
  The legislation was rejected by a narrow 350-338 margin. 12 of Merz’s own CDU/CSU party members voted against the legislation, likely due to being associated with the AfD.

• Brandmauer: “Brandmauer” means “Firewall” in German. The concept was introduced by Germany’s centrist parties (the SPD, CDU/CSU, FDP) and is an informal commitment to exclude the “far-right” AfD from coalition governments. If upheld, it would require the centrist parties to form a government free of infighting and policy disagreements. Many Germans praise the concept, while many feel it is inherently anti-democratic to exclude elected officials from the political process.
  The CDU/CSU and AfD’s mutual support for immigration reform suggests they could form a coalition following February elections.

• Protests: In later January, Germany has experienced minor political protests against growing support for the “far-right” Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. In Cologne, some protestors called out Friedrich Merz — the leader of the CDU/CSU Union party and frontrunner for chancellor — due to his desire to reform German immigration laws following violent attacks by migrants. If such pressure continues, it could compel centrist parties to invite the AfD to a majority coalition following February elections.

Why This Matters
There are two exclusive issues here that are really exerting pressure on Germany’s political structure:

• German immigration policy and the debate about reform

• Upcoming snap elections (23 February 2025)

Parties like the AfD grew their support — and picked up a “far-right extremist” designation — for policy proposals that suggest radical change to German migration laws and protecting Germans and German cultural institutions (i.e. language, faith, ethnicity, norms, traditions). Now, following a series of violent crimes perpetrated by migrants in 2024 and Q1 2025, those ideas are becoming more popular.

This debate, and Germany’s discomfort with having it, is also influencing the snap elections. The centrist parties, fearing a new Nazism, agreed in principle to reject working with the AfD. Now, as parties play politics before considering reform and addressing German issues, it appears as though the AfD are becoming a more viable coalition partner (The Chancellor — effectively a Prime Minister — comes from the majority party, so coalitions are established to form majorities).

Should the AfD find themselves in a government coalition, center-left parties could boycott the Bundestag and work arduously to hold up the political process and pressure a vote of no confidence before a new government even gets a fair go. It would also likely lead to large-scale protests in major cities, such as Berlin.

The timing of this political crisis is incredible, because not only are Germany dealing with an immigration crisis and a security crisis in Ukraine, they are dealing with an energy crisis due to Russian gas being cut-off and a shrinking economy — Germany’s economy has now shrunk for 3 consecutive years, the most since reunification in 1990.

Sources: The Intel Brief, AP News, BBC, AP News, DW, DW, Reuters

Trump Tariffs Hit China, Canada, Mexico; EU To Follow

Summary
On 31 January, President Trump signed executive orders imposing tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico. The tariffs will take effect on Tuesday, 4 February 2025. Each nation has announced counter-tariffs, officially marking the start of a new “Trade War.”

Findings

• China: Trump is imposing a 10% tariff on Chinese imports which are supplementing previous ones. Trump cited frustrations with China’s role in fueling the U.S. fentanyl crisis.

• Canada and Mexico: NPR reports the Trump is imposing a 25% tax on “most imports” from Mexico and Canada. For Canada, there is a 10% tariff on energy exports. The two countries are some of the United States’ largest trade partners. In his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico for steel and aluminum imports.

• EU: Trump said he will “absolutely” impose tariffs on the EU soon, and that there is “nothing” the bloc can do to avoid it. The European Commission said it is prepared to respond to Trump tariffs in “a proportionate way.”

Why This Matters
First and foremost, it is critical to understand that the value, worth, cleverness, or utility of tariffs is always situational — a tariff on Chinese cars may make more sense that tariffs on Chinese pork, for example. So just know that while the media is either saying President Trump is either a genius or a fool for his tariff policies, it is being done to compel unknown secondary and tertiary policy objectives.

Now, the negative side of tariffs is that there is often a short-term impact of increased costs that consumers and taxpayers shoulder the burden on. This is because importers will raise their prices to account for the difference in fees, thereby driving up consumer prices. For example, NPR reports that the tariffs could negative effects on the cost of some products, such as fruits and vegetables, electronics, auto parts, and gas.

However, the positive side of tariffs is that over time, our domestic industries can either increase production or find new markets and partners to lower costs. This is to say that over time, prices should “level.” From a strategic perspective, tariffs are typically a tool used to pressure or coerce adherence to higher-level goals.

Mexico is a good, easy example: Trump wants Mexico to invest more money, time, and personnel into combating illegal migration to the United States. By restricting trade, Trump can compel Mexico’s leaders to “play ball.” In Canada — and in my opinion — Trump’s tariffs are intended to pressure Trudeau’s already-failing tenure and instigate an overdue no confidence vote and snap election in Canada. For China, the reasons are much more complex, and have to do with Chinese industry, emerging technologies, and dangerous products flooding U.S. and Western markets.

Sources: NPR, CNBC, POLITICO, CNBC

Iran Issues Warning As Netanyahu Prepares To Visit Trump

Summary
On 4 February, Netanyahu is visiting President Trump at the White House to discuss various crises and interests in the Middle East. A U.S. Senate resolution has assured that all policy options remain open. Iran has threatened any strikes on its territory will lead to war.

Findings

• Netanyahu Visit: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is visiting President Trump at the White House on Tuesday, 4 February 2025. The pair will discuss “victory over Hamas,” securing Phase Two of the Gaza ceasefire, countering Iran and its nuclear development, and relations with the Arab states.

• Gaza Ceasefire: The ceasefire in Gaza is currently wrapping up the first phase, which included the release of hostages held by Hamas and the exchange of Palestinian prisoners. Phase Two will facilitate the release of remaining hostages and possibly establish a formal peace agreement. Negotiations being today, 3 February 2025.
  Netanyahu previously stated the Israel would never stop its war against Hamas and other Iran-sponsored terror groups.

• U.S. Iran Policy: President Trump is expected to order his Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff to negotiate with Iranian counterparts to establish a diplomatic solution to denuclearization.
  Citing Iran’s nuclear development as a “credible” and “existential” threat to Israel, the U.S., and other regional partners, U.S. Senators passed a resolution which keeps “all options” regarding policy open. Senator Graham (R-SC) said the resolution does not authorize the use of military force.

• Iran: Iran’s Foreign Minister, speaking to Al Jazeera, stated that strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would trigger “all out war,” and that Tehran would respond “immediately and decisively.” Iran has still not retaliated directly for Israeli airstrikes in October 2024.
  On 2 February, Iran unveiled the “Etemad” ballistic missile. According to The Time of Israel, the missile has a 1,056 miles range and can strike Israel.

Why This Matters
Trump and Netanyahu have a historic task ahead of them — they need to coordinate a means of denuclearizing Iran, either through diplomacy or military action. Iran’s nuclearization is a growing concern in the global community and Canada and the EU are slowly coming around to the idea of striking Iranian facilities.

If Trump and Netanyahu cannot reach a diplomatic agreement, and the necessary conditions to vet adherence to a new nuclear deal, then the likelihood of striking Iran increases.

Trump’s team is also quickly filling its plate. Top diplomats are working to reach a new phase of the Gaza ceasefire, negotiating around tariffs, managing the deportation of illegal migrants, and setting up Ukraine negotiations to name a few. The Iran crisis is no less serious or urgent.

Sources: AP News, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera, The Times of Israel

U.S. Army, Navy Will Test Hypersonic Missile In 2025

Summary
An article by Defence Blog reports that the U.S. Army and Navy will conduct a series of tests for a new hypersonic missile launch system. The system has succeeded in FY24 trials and could be operational with the Navy as early as 2027.

Findings

• CPS Program: The Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic weapon system is the Army and Navy’s newest leap in hypersonic fires capabilities. The CPS is intended to “strike high-value, time-sensitive targets,” such as adversary ICBM sites, airfields, or nuclear facilities.

• Future Tests: The Army and Navy have planned tests of the CPS system for FY25. The Army will test the system alongside the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon’s (LRHW) erector launcher. The Navy will test the CPS from submarine launch canisters and surface vessel launch canister. The CPS will be integrated to the Zumwalt-class destroyers and Virginia-class submarines.

• Acquisition Strategy: The earliest initial deployment for the CPS is with the Navy and is scheduled for sometime in FY27.

Why This Matters
The CPS program is a revolutionary advancement to American missile technology. The speed and range of hypersonic missiles improve U.S. strike capability and limit the effects of gaps in the “Kill Chain” — the intelligence, communication, and decision-making that precede pulling the trigger. In the modern security environment, this is complicated by politics and hybrid warfare that blurs the lines between competition and conflict.

If we consider the CPS in relation to an adversary like China, it allows U.S. forces to, theoretically, employ a decisive series of strikes on strategic targets in a short period and at greater distances, thereby lowering the chances of China succeeding through quick and decisive campaigns against U.S., Taiwanese, and allied forces.

Sources: Defence Blog

Panamanian Seeks To Withdraw From Chinese Belt And Road Initiative

Summary
Following Marco Rubio’s visit to Panama, the President Mulino announced that he would not renew a memorandum with China that outlines Panama’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. Mulino also said Panama will retain ownership and operations control of the canal, and that the U.S. will not be granted reduced fees.

Findings

• Panama Canal: President Trump has previously suggested the United States will reacquire the Panama Canal. Trump stated that Panama’s operating policies “rip off” U.S. vessels that transit the canal. Trump also cited China’s growing influence over the canals operations.
  Data from 2021 states 72.5% of all vessels transiting the canal have an American origin.

• Secretary of State Rubio: On 2 February, Rubio arrived in Panama City to meet with President Mulino. The Guardian reported that Rubio “told Mulino in the talks that the U.S. president has determined China’s influence threatens the Panama Canal and that immediate changes were needed or the U.S. would act.”

• President Mulino: Mulino said he and Rubio had a “very respectable and cordial meeting” and that the canal will continue to be operated by Panama. In a public statement, Mulino said he will not renew a memorandum with China that has Panama partake in the Belt and Road Initiative.
  Mulino stated the U.S. will not be granted administration over the canal or see a reduction in fees.

Why This Matters
While Mulino’s rebuke to China is seen a victory for Rubio and the Trump administration, there do not appear to be any other details that indicate mutual interests were met.

If the U.S. is not benefiting from ownership or a reduction in fees, it is possible Trump will continue to pressure Panama. Trump would be very likely to pressure Mulino’s office with tariffs and migrant deportations, but if tensions dipped low enough, the U.S. could seize the canal by force.

Despite these updates, Trump voiced his opinion: “They’ve already offered to do many things but we think it’s appropriate that we take it back.”

There are concerns that in a conflict in the Pacific — between the U.S. and China — China could deploy vessels from global ports to blockade, sabotage, or destroy the canal.

Sources: X, The Guardian, The Intel Brief

End Brief

That concludes this brief.

Want to help this newsletter for FREE? Here is what you can do:

• Scroll to the top of this email

• Find the “Forward” button

• Click the “Forward” button

• Enter a few friends or family who would enjoy this post

• Click “Send”

Thanks for your continued support,

Nick