Ukraine

Robots are the future face of war. And Ukraine’s dominance in the production of drones and unmanned boats and ground vehicles means that it is well on its way to becoming a defense industry superpower.

Drone production is up from 800,000 a year three years ago to seven million in 2025. They enjoy a three to one advantage over the Russians over the top of the range First Person View (FPV) drones. These are drones fitted with a camera which allows the operator to see in real time everything the drone sees. Ukraine is also producing 1,000 fixed wing drones a day. These can travel up to 1,500 miles into Russian territory.

Ukraine’s success with unmanned boats and submarines has given it dominance in the Black Sea. But its latest success has been with a variety of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs). They are used primarily to deliver supplies to front line troops, but they have also been used to lay mines and rescue soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. The latest versions are also used as launching pads for armed drones.

Ukraine has 2,500 companies involved in the development and production of drones and unmanned vehicles which, according to President Volodomyr Zelensky,  have conducted 22,000 missions in the first three months of this year.

Russia is, of course, also stepping up production of drones and unmanned vehicles. Early in the war Moscow had the advantage. But Ukraine adopted an entrepreneurial approach to production which has overtaken and streaked ahead of Russian manufacturing whose rigid production base is heavily centralised Soviet-style.

Which brings us to Ukraine’s future as a defense industry superpower. Most of the country’s unmanned weaponry is fully utilised fighting the Russian behemoth. But Ukrainians are starting to sell to other countries a limited surplus and—more importantly their expertise– to help pay for the war. And when the fighting finally stops, Ukraine’s lead in the field will play a major part in financing the country’s reconstruction.

Recently President Volodomyr Zelensky made an unscheduled trip to the United Arab Emirates to talk to them about drone defenses for protection against Iranian missiles. The Gulf States are already well-equipped with American-made Patriot missiles and THAAD (The High-Altitude Air Defense) systems. But these cost up to a $1million per fired missiles whereas Ukrainian drones range from $2,500 to $25,000.

So far Kyiv has concluded deals—or is the final stages of negotiations with the following countries: Germany, Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, Romania, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Syria. Defense experts estimate that sales of equipment and know could be worth $8billion this year, rising to $22 billion-plus in 2028. This means a substantial contribution to Ukraine’s defense budget of $80 billion. However, it is a drop in the ocean when one considers the estimated $500 billion in reconstruction costs.

The success of Ukraine’s drone industry has a wider financial impact than immediate cash revenue. It enables the country to project itself as an industrial power for decades to come which improves its ability to borrow on the international bond markets to pay for both the war and reconstruction.

The King and Trump

One does not discuss private conversations with the monarch. That is the convention—in fact, the rule—when talking with the British king.

There is an exceptionally good reason for this rule/convention. The king must be seen to be above politics. He must be to appoint prime ministers based on the wishes of the electorate rather than his own personal prejudices.

That does not mean that the king cannot discuss politics with politicians. And because he has been involved at the top end of the political process his entire life, he is well-placed to give advice. And he does. To political leaders around the world. He just does it PRIVATELY.

That is why eyebrows were raised when Trump revealed the contents of a private Oval Office conversation with King Charles when he told the world that the king is opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. “Even more than I do,” he quipped.

The president’s comment was no great revelation. Of course, King Charles III is opposed to nuclear proliferation as Buckingham Palace made clear with a slightly raised eyebrow. That is the British government position, and the king supports the government of the day.

The king’s views on the subject are less important than the fact that – once again—Donald Trump has proven that he cannot be trusted to abide by the normal rules and conventions.

Iran

Trump may be right. He may have effected regime change in Iran. And the new regime may be more likely to do a deal than the old.

Piecing together the limited news that is trickling out of Iran, it seems that the war has pushed the country from a theocracy ruled by mullahs to a military dictatorship governed by generals. To be specific, the generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Under the old system the former Supreme Leader—Ayatollah Ali Khameini—had a stranglehold on power. No decision could be made without reference to him. The new Supreme Leader, his son Mojtaba Khemeini, is both closely allied with the IRGC, heavily guarded and gravely wounded from an Israeli attack. It is believed that Khameini has had a leg amputated. His face is severely burned and he can barely speak. This has meant no public appearances and that all contact with him is through a tight cordon controlled by the IRGC.

The IRGC still has a strong Islamic element, but like military dictatorships through the ages, the IRGC craves power—political, military and economic. They had it before the war. Key generals controlled the major industries and provided protection for the Supreme Leader. Being control of the fighting has given them more power and they want to keep it.

As the Trump Administration’s diplomacy is also largely based on the pursuit of power, the two sides would seem to be in the transactional position in which Trump revels.

And, in fact, there have been reports of informal Iranian offers for American businesses to be awarded contracts for the reconstruction of Iran and even, possibly, for a Trump hotel in Tehran.

However, two sticking points remain. And they are big. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have staked their reputations to these issues and to give way would result in a loss of face which could result in the loss of the power which each side craves. The diplomatic trick, therefore. is to shelve the nuclear and Hormuz issue and negotiate a business deal that allow both sides to declare victory. .

War Powers Act

Today, as I write, (Friday, May First) is the day. It is 60 days since the United States launched its war against Iran. That means that under the 1973 War Powers Act the president must secure Congressional approval for his war or stop fighting and withdraw.

Trump will ignore the War Powers Act—or seek a political workaround—just as he has with every other inconvenient law.

Defense Secretary (War) Pete Hegseth offered one such workaround in testimony before Congress this week. He said that the clock on the War Powers Act stopped when a ceasefire was declared. Wrong. The law is clear. The war stops when troops are withdrawn. Also, a ceasefire implies that fighting could continue at the drop of a drone should either side wish it. Finally, the blockade of Iranian ports continues, and a blockade is an internationally recognised act of war.

But there is another workaround. This one offered by Republican Speaker of the Mike Johnson. He has simply used the Trumpian black is white argument to claim that America “is not at war.” Tell that to the bombed-out Iranians and the rest of the world which is reeling from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Democrats have already tried once to stop the Iran War. They failed to win the necessary Republican support. They will try again. This time using the War Powers Act. They will fail again. That could leave only one avenue: The Supreme Court.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”