weapon

The Chinese side has a weapon that is impossible for the European side.

by

Talk about technological and commercial war leads us to look at United States and China. They are the two who star in the great conflict between vetoes and a race for technological independence. But between the Netherlands and China there is a bunch of look at me and don’t touch me. In the eye of the storm is Nexperia, a Chinese semiconductor company, but based in the Netherlands. After a public breakup and a civil war between the two headquarters, Nexperia China has just threatened something very big: they are capable of manufacturing wafers 12 inches… and the unit in Europe no. And it is something that adds to that technological sovereignty that China pursues. Summary of the sauce. Before getting into the matter, it is worth reviewing because history has gone from 0 to 100 in just a few months. Nexperia is a manufacturer that originated from the split of the Dutch company NXP Semiconductors. They are, as their name indicates, a semiconductor company, the material with which the chips that all our devices contain are created. China has been wanting to consolidate its semiconductor industry for years, even before Trump’s veto, and bought Nexperia in 2017 for $2.75 billion. The headquarters were in the Netherlands, but the owner was a Chinese consortium backed by the country’s government. In October 2025, the surprise arrived: Netherlands confiscated Nexperia by surpriseallowing the country full control of its operations. Aim? Protect Europe’s chips. Consequence? Very risky move in relations with China that were already deteriorating. The next move was breakup of the Chinese part of Nexperia with the European onethe stoppage of chip shipping which threatened world automobile production for a time and totally broken communications between both parties. It is not that the company was divided into two separate entities: it was that it was one body with two brains. And they didn’t speak. Be careful what a mess. With this said, we return to the present. Although relations were still very tense, they seemed to have eased somewhat until, a few days ago, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce warned that tensions between Nexperia Netherlands and Nexperia China were flourishing again. It seems that the Dutch side had disabled the professional accounts of all your employees in China (we are talking about key work systems such as Office 365 and similar) and China said “yes? Well, I’m not sending you materials to make wafers.” From China, this action was classified as unforgivable as it “seriously disrupted the company’s normal production and operations.” And the threat came: “if a new crisis arises in global semiconductor production and supply chains, the Netherlands will be to blame.” This is something that would affect, above all, to the automotive industryand we already have enough with the RAM crisis. Shortly after, on March 6, Nexperia China reported that many operations had already resumed and Nexperia Netherlands, without denying the action, questioned whether it had really been as serious for the Chinese side as they were making it out to be. 12 inch wafers. The Dutch side was very well positioned in wafer manufacturing and was supplying them to Nexperia China before they stopped talking to each other. Since then, the Chinese side has secured suppliers and improved its technology on its own. And they are not doing badly. In a statement published by Nexperia China, the company stated have started small-scale production of 12-inch wafers. In them, it “prints” the same components that are also manufactured in the Dutch part, but with a nuance: the Chinese wafers are larger. The larger the wafer, the more you can “print” on it and the easier it is to develop large-scale production. This means more chips at lower prices due to economies of scale. According to the Chinese side, Nexperia Netherlands cannot manufacture 12-inch wafers in European facilities, so they now have the advantage. a wafer And in detail. The larger the wafer, the more it can be “printed” and the more chips can come off a single wafer. Local supply. This has two implications. On the one hand, what we talked about: economies of scale and the ability for automakers to buy from China instead of the Netherlands. On the other hand, the demonstration that they can manage on their own with other suppliers. Now, it esteem that the Shanghai plant has a production capacity of 30,000 wafers per month compared to Nexperia’s 83,000 in Hamburg, but of course, if they have found the key to producing larger wafers, in the end fewer wafers can yield more. And beyond all, it is a demonstration of the extent to which the two sides are going their separate ways and, in recent communicationsnone of them have any intention of fixing things. And, in the end, it is one more example of something bigger: it is currently impossible to separate global technology from geopolitics. Images | Steve JurvetsonJohn McMaster In Xataka | Spain is betting its future in the semiconductor industry on a single card: gallium chips

Iran’s drones have aimed at the same target as the US. And now that they have pulverized it, they are going to unleash their most dangerous weapon

by

In the Middle East there are radars capable of tracking objects thousands of kilometers and distinguish between dozens of targets in mid-flight. They are machines the size of a building, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are part of the system that detects attacks before they even cross the atmosphere. However, in the current war they are discovering something uncomfortable: the greatest danger to these technological gems may come from weapons that cost a fraction of its price. The eyes of the shield. Since the beginning of the war, Iran has directed a very specific part of his attacks against an objective that rarely appears in the headlines but that underpins the entire defensive architecture of the United States in the Middle East: the radars that allow detecting and tracking missiles in flight. These sensors (like the AN/TPY-2 associated with the THAAD system or the gigantic AN/FPS-132 deployed in Qatar) act as the “eyes” of the regional anti-missile shield, feeding data to Patriot interceptors, THAAD or Aegis destroyers to destroy threats before they reach their objectives. However, several of these systems have been hit in the last days by Iranian attacks, some confirmed through satellite images. Among them is the strategic radar of the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, valued at nearly a billion dollars, and an AN/TPY-2 radar in Jordan directly linked to THAAD batteries. Other locations in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Bahrain as well have suffered impacts in facilities related to radar or communications, partially weakening the surveillance capacity of the regional defensive system. The shaheds against the most expensive system. The paradox of these attacks is that many of them have been carried out with unidirectional attack drones relatively cheap, like the Shahed, whose cost is only a fraction of the missiles and sensors they try to neutralize. While US systems were designed to intercept much more expensive and sophisticated ballistic or cruise missiles, Iran has bet for saturating or damaging them with much simpler platforms. These drones fly low and slow, which can make it difficult to detect for defenses designed for faster threats. Furthermore, the country has proven to have the capacity to produce them in large quantitiessomething that is already left patent in Ukraine with its export to Russia. In this war, that industrial advantage translates into a pretty clear strategy: launch constant waves of drones against sensors, command centers and communication systems, gradually eroding the network that allows us to detect threats in the air. An Army and Navy transportable surveillance radar (AN/TPY-2) positioned on Kwajalein Atoll during FTI-01 flight testing Blind the shield. The pattern that emerges suggests that these attacks are not simply scattered retaliation, but rather part of a much more calculated approach. Radars not only detect threats, they are the element that makes it possible to intercept them. Without them, even the most advanced anti-missile systems remain partially blind or rely on incomplete information. Hitting these sensors, therefore, has a multiplier effect– Each radar out of service increases the likelihood that future waves of attacks will penetrate defenses. In that sense, the Shahed seem to have aimed at the same target since the beginning of the conflict: the eyes of the American anti-missile shield. And the more that network is degraded, the greater the scope for other, more dangerous weapons (stored in underground silos and fortified bases) can come into play with greater chances of success. A satellite image taken on March 2, 2026 shows debris around a blackened THAAD radar at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan The problem of radars. The episode also highlights a structural weakness that analysts have long pointed out. Large early warning radars are extremely sophisticated, but also huge, expensive and largely static. Each one costs hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars and there are very few in the world, which means that replacing them can take years. At the same time, their size and fixed nature make them on relatively easy targets to locate through intelligence or commercial satellite images. Even seemingly minor damage can cause a “mission kill”that is, leaving the radar inoperative for long periods, even if the structure is still standing. In other words, a cheap drone can temporarily disable a central piece of the strategic defense of an entire region. The new logic of air war. Plus: what is happening reflects a deeper change in the way defensive systems are attacked. For decades it was assumed that destroying strategic radars required sophisticated missiles or large-scale complex attacks. The proliferation of drones has altered that equation. Today even actors with limited resources can employ cheap platforms to degrade sensors that cost hundreds of millions. This logic has already been seen in other conflictsfrom Ukrainian attacks against Russian radars to Israeli operations against Iranian air defenses. In all cases the principle is the same: “shoot the archer” before facing his arrows. If the system that detects threats disappears or is degraded, the entire shield loses effectiveness. A warning for the future. Beyond the immediate damage, these attacks have opened a broader strategic debate about resilience of American missile defense. The current architecture relies heavily on a small number of extremely valuable ground sensors. If those sensors are destroyed or neutralized, even temporarily, the defensive balance can quickly shift. That is why more and more experts advocate complementing or replacing part of these capabilities. with space sensors capable of tracking missiles from orbit, creating redundancy against ground attacks. However, these technologies, if they arrive, will take years to be fully deployed. Meanwhile, the current war has left an uncomfortable lesson: a system designed to stop the world’s most sophisticated weapons can be weakened. by swarms of drones cheap. And when the radars stop seeingthe next move on the board can be much more dangerous. Image | Google Earth, X, Missile Defense Agency, Airbus In Xataka | You’ve probably never heard of urea. The missiles in Iran are destroying their production, and that will affect your food In Xataka … Read more

If an all-out war breaks out between the US and Iran, the ultimate weapon will be desalination plants

by

The whole world holds its breath looking at the same point on the map: the Strait of Hormuz. With markets trembling at the possibility of a barrel of oil breaking the $100 barrier and exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) paralyzing, the global narrative has turned this conflict into a purely energy crisis. But the reality is much more primary and terrifying. As the analyst Javier Blas warns in a forceful report for Bloombergthe real threat in the military escalation between the coalition led by the United States and Israel against Iran lies not in the oil wells, but in thirst. Oil, Blas points out, is essential for the global economy, but water is simply irreplaceable. If total war breaks out, the definitive weapon will not be energy, but biological survival. This vulnerability is not a secret. As the analyst himself revealsthe American CIA has been warning its policymakers about this matter for decades. In a secret evaluation in the early 1980s —now declassified—, the intelligence agency made it clear that the true “strategic product” (strategic commodity) of the Middle East is not black gold, but drinking water. Unable to engage in a head-on, symmetrical clash with the combined war machine of the United States and Israel, Iran has adopted a survival strategy based on attacking what are known in military jargon as “soft targets.” And they have already started. As detailed in another report by BloombergIran recently attacked a power plant in Fujairah, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is responsible for keeping one of the largest desalination plants in the world in operation. In neighboring Kuwait, debris from an intercepted drone caused a fire at another of its water facilities in Doha West. The offense doesn’t stop there. As we have explained in Xatakathe Saudi Ras Tanura refinery was hit by Iranian drones twice in a single week. The truly alarming thing is that this refinery is only 80 kilometers from Ras Al Khairthe largest hybrid desalination complex on the planet. The risk is physical and mathematical: attacks on the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai fell just 20 kilometers from a critical complex with 43 desalination units, according to Michael Christopher Low in The Conversation. The level of aggressiveness is overwhelming the region. The UAE have already faced more than 800 missile and drone attacks (exceeding in volume those received by Israel). Although most are intercepted, the impacts have caused fires in the Burj Al Arab and have damaged data centers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in UAE and Bahrain. This last point is critical: As experts warn Chosun Dailythese data centers digitally manage the energy and water distribution network; A digital blackout is equivalent to a physical power outage. Survival hangs by a thread for 72 hours The region’s monarchies are “saltwater kingdoms,” How do you define them? The Conversation. Eight of the ten largest desalination plants in the world are in the Arabian Peninsula, concentrating 60% of global capacity. The population’s dependence on this technology, according to data from W.G.I. Worldis absolute: Kuwait: 90% of its drinking water comes from desalination. Oman: 86%. Saudi Arabia: 70%. United Arab Emirates: 42% (almost 100% in metropolises like Dubai). If Iran decides to target these plants, human collapse would be devastating. A great report of House of Saudbased on a 2008 US diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaksreveals a terrifying scenario about Riyadh. The Saudi capital, with more than 8 million inhabitants, receives more than 90% of its drinking water from the Jubail plant through a single 500 kilometer pipeline. The report is blunt: if the plant or its pipeline were destroyed, “Riyadh would have to be evacuated within a week.” There is not even room to improvise. As an analysis in Iran InternationalQatar admitted that, in a scenario of massive water pollution, the country estimated to run out of drinking water in just three days, which forced them to build 15 giant emergency reservoirs. However, as researcher Bailey Schwab points out in WGI Worldwater cannot be politically rationed for long in cities that depend on the State to survive extreme temperatures. The energy-water nexus: the asymmetric calculation The system’s vulnerability is asymmetric and deeply technical. As explained by the analysis of House of Sauddesalination plants consume massive amounts of electricity (they represent almost 6% of total consumption in Saudi Arabia) and are co-located with mega power plants. If a missile takes down the power plant, the water supply dies instantly with it. Additionally, there is an unsustainable gap in recovery times. While an oil refinery can restore part of its production in a couple of weeks (as happened after the attack on Abqaiq in 2019), as Bailey Schwab warns, the components of a reverse osmosis plant are extremely high-precision parts that, if destroyed, would take months to replace. And defending this is economically unsustainable. Iran is using Shahed-136 droneswhich cost between $15,000 and $50,000 per unit. Opposite, the monumental Ras Al Khair plant cost 7.2 billion dollars and sits just 250 kilometers from the Iranian coast. It is a trivial flight for drones that have a range of 2,500 kilometers. As if that were not enough, this vulnerability drags food security down with it. There is one fact that goes unnoticed in the economic press: 70% of food imports of the GCC transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia imports almost 80% of its food (wheat, corn and barley) by sea. With marine insurers canceling war risk policies for merchant ships, Gulf countries not only face dying of thirst, but also food isolation. The paradox: Iran, a country drowned by its own drought If the situation in the Gulf is critical, that of the aggressor country is equally desperate, although for different reasons. An analysis by Fred Pearce in Yale Environment 360 (Yale E360) details that Iran faces its own “water bankruptcy.” The crisis has reached such a point that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned last November that the country “has no choice” but to … Read more

reverse engineering with an unprecedented weapon

by

In wars, innovation is rarely born in a vacuum: it has often emerged from carefully observing the adversary. Throughout history, some of the most profound military transformations came not with entirely new weapons, but with the reinterpretation of existing technologies that changed hands. Now, in the 21st century, when the AIthe unmanned systems and the industrial production accelerated speed sets the pace of the combat, that old dynamic has once again taken center stage in a way that is as unexpected as it is revealing. The debut of American kamikaze drones. Yes, the United States attacked Iranian territory within the framework of Operation Epic Fury together with Israel, but what was truly unprecedented was not the magnitude of the air offensive or the coordination between both countries, something that we saw very few months ago in the same scenario, but the debut in combat of the LUCASthat is, the long-range kamikaze drones used for the first time by US forces. Launched from the ground by Task Force Scorpion Strikecreated specifically to introduce this type of capabilities in the region, the LUCAS acted as loitering munitions capable of flying long distances, staying in the zone and launching against their target in a single use. Their low cost, around tens of thousands of dollars per unit, contrasts with the price and production complexity of traditional cruise missiles, which allows them to be used in sufficient number to saturate defenses, coordinate network attacks, and maintain human oversight while operating with partial autonomy. For the first time, Washington was not only talking about cheap drones as a complement, but was actively integrating them into a real campaign against a sovereign state. The weapon returned to its creator. The strategic key to the attack lies not only in the technology, but in its origin. It we count some time ago. He LUCAS design part directly of the Iranian Shahed-136the same model that Tehran has employed for years in the Middle East and that Russia has used brutally in Ukraine. After obtaining a copy, the device was analyzed and reengineered by American companies, adapting it to their own standards and a more networked architecture. In essence, Washington used one of the oldest practices of warfare to bomb Iran: reverse engineering. It was not just about copying a platform, but about appropriate your logic operational (cheap weapon, long distance, volume versus exclusive precision) and turn it back against whoever popularized it. The result is a investment symbolic and even doctrinal: The country that had perfected the use of low-cost drone swarms became the target of its own reinterpreted strategic model. Tactical surprise and demolition. If we expand the frame of the photo, the use of drones was integrated into a much broader offensive based on precise intelligence and extreme timing. He told in a report the new york times that the CIA and the Israeli services managed to identify a meeting from top Iranian commanders in Tehran, including the supreme leader, which allowed the timing of the attack to be adjusted to maximize the initial impact. The combined operation drones, cruise missiles, long-range artillery and a massive aerial surge that sought to neutralize anti-aircraft defenses and dismantle the chain of command from the first strike. The result was the removal of key figures of the Iranian political-military apparatus and obtaining air superiority in a matter of hours. In this context, the LUCAS did not act in isolation, but as part of a distributed attack architecture that combined saturation, precision and speed to prevent an immediate coordinated response. Cheap drones vs millions. The use of LUCAS also showed a deeper trend that the war in Ukraine has pontificated: the growing vulnerability of advanced air defense systems to cheap and numerous platforms. Iran had demonstrated that even the most sophisticated defensive architectures can be overwhelmed by waves of relatively simple drones. The United States now applied that same logic, exploiting the cost-effect relationship to impose pressure and force the adversary to spend much more expensive resources on interceptors. If you will, the long-range kamikaze drone stops being a weapon of peripheral actors and becomes a fully integrated tool in the arsenal of a superpower, altering the traditional equation between cutting-edge technology and volume of fire. From Rome to the missile age. The reverse engineering employed by Washington is not a modern anomaly, but rather a historical constant. In ancient times, Rome copied Carthaginian vessels to build your fleet. In the Middle AgesThey used siege machines captured, and already in World War II, rocket and bomber programs were fed by enemy technology and scientists. One of the most famous cases was that of German V-2 ballistic missile developed by Nazi Germany at the end of World War II. Both the United States and the Soviet Union captured rockets, plans, and scientists. Washington joined Wernher von Braun in its space program, while Moscow did the same with its own equipment. That reverse engineering was the direct basis of the missile programs and, later, the space race. And during the Cold War. Also, because both missiles and guidance systems changed hands to be disassembled and reproduced. One of the most famous cases was that of the strategic bomber B-29 Superfortress. When several American B-29s made forced landings on Soviet territory, the USSR dismantled them piece by piece and produced an almost exact copy: the Tupolev Tu-4. It was, once again, an extreme exercise in industrial reverse engineering, to the point of replicating even defects in the original design. The pattern, as we see, repeats itself: capture, study, adapt and improve. What changes is the speed and technical complexity. In the case of the LUCASthat cycle closed in the 21st century with remarkable speed, also integrating autonomous coordination and network warfare capabilities that multiply its impact. The practice is ancient, but its execution is contemporary. A new stage. He attack on Iran marks a turning point because it includes for the first time the United States as an active user of long-range … Read more

Iran is going to need much more from China and Russia. The US has landed its fighter planes loaded with a weapon that changes everything: angry kittens

by

For most of the 20th century, air superiority has been decided by who flew higher, faster, or with more missiles. Today, the decisive factor does not have to be seen or heard, and sometimes even fits in a container under the fuselage. In modern conflicts, confuse the enemy for a few seconds it can be worth more than destroying it, and those seconds are usually start much earlier for the first plane to appear on the radar. Therefore, Iran may need much more than “aid” and agreements with China either Russia. A deployment that anticipates. While Washington and Tehran keep the diplomatic channel open, we have been counting that the Pentagon has been strengthening its presence in the Middle East for weeks with a movement of forces that includes fighters, bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers and land systems. The transfer of F-16CJ fighters specialized in air defense suppression is not a symbolic gesture. It is an operational signal that, if the negotiation ends up failing, the United States wants have the key ready to open the Iranian sky from the first minute. Wild Weasel: Enter first, shoot later. The F-16CJ are designed to an uncomfortable mission and certainly dangerous– Locate enemy radars, force them to turn on, and neutralize them before they can guide missiles against the attacking force. These aircraft are equipped with the system AN/ASQ-213 and anti-radiation missiles AGM-88 HARMand can physically destroy detection and command nodes. That said, its true advantage isn’t always in explosion. It is in the ability to disorganize the entire anti-aircraft architecture before it understands what is happening through a secret weapon. The “angry kittens”. Yes, because under the fuselage of these fighters travels the Angry Kitten podan advanced electronic warfare system that began as a tool to simulate threats in exercises and ended up evolving into a real operational capability. Let it be known, at least since 2017 It has been tested on multiple platforms and has become a test bed for cognitive electronic warfare, approaching the ideal of systems capable of quickly adapting to changing threat environments. Turning radar into a mirage. Thanks to technology from radio frequency digital memorythe Angry Kitten can detect, capture and manipulate enemy radar emissions to return altered signals. In other words, they don’t just block. What it does is create false targetsdistorts trajectories and sows doubts on the operator’s screen, thus reducing thereliability of information that supports the launch of interceptor missiles. Additionally, it can update jamming techniques very quickly and even adjust them during the mission, while the pilot concentrates on flying and fighting. They will face the invisible challenge. Tehran has reinforced its anti-aircraft batteries and seeks external support, trusting in missiles of chinese origin and in strategic alliances with Russia as a deterrent. However, that network relies on radars, data links and command centers that can be confused before a single interceptor leaves the launcher. Hence, Iran is going to need much more than Beijing’s missiles and the Moscow submarines. Because Washington has just landed in the East with fighter planes loaded with those angry kittens capable of disorganizing the defense from within and converting the apparent solidity of the shield into an electronic illusion. The war before the first impact. In short, everything indicates that, if a prolonged air campaignthe breakdown of the Iranian defensive overlap will not fall solely on stealth platforms. Most likely it will require methodical work of these F-16CJ opening corridors, degrading sensors and keeping pressure on the anti-aircraft network. In that scenario, the first phase would not be so much a rain of bombs. It would be more of an invisible battle for control of the spectrum, one where whoever dominates the signal dominates the sky. Image | John QuineUSAF In Xataka | As the US approached, the satellites have captured a shadow: Iran has resurrected a Russian Frankenstein for what is to come In Xataka | To sink a US aircraft carrier required a weapon that Iran did not have. The arrival of China has just changed everything

They are your weapon in the war of the last mile

by

In 2017 The Supercor Stop&Go brand was born. The objective was to “create the largest network of proximity and convenience stores in Spain” and we can say that almost a decade later they have achieved it. The number of establishments is now close to 800 and their plans are even more ambitious. 1,000 stores. It is the objective that El Corte Inglés and Repsol have set for 2028. Only In 2025, 71 establishments will openreaching a total of 778 stores in operation. Of all of them, there are 672 that correspond to the Stop&Go format and 106 are the Mini version; By 2028 they want them to be 750 and 250 respectively. In total, they will have to open 222 more establishments in the next two years, 111 a year, almost double the pace of last year. Why it is important. For El Corte Inglés there are many points of sale that allow it to gain ground in the local supermarket, but it is also a huge network of collection points. For Repsol, It’s part of your business non-oil and allows them to give added value to their stations, generating benefits beyond the sale of fuel. More ecommerce than retail. The alliance is not understood without ecommerce. El Corte Inglés does not only want to sell at gas stations: it wants to create a capillary network of points where its customers can collect online orders. This allows them compete on the battlefield that is last mile logistics. Amazon has its mega logistics centers and its delivery fleets, ecommerce startups compete on price and speed. El Corte Inglés and Repsol have something better: physical assets already operational and a brand that people recognize. Repsol’s business grows. As we said, Supercor Stop&Go is part of a broader diversification strategy for Repsol. The oil company has alliances with other companies such as Amazon, Strarbucks, Lizarran or Levaduramadre, in addition to more than 500 Klin washing areas. Its objective is to convert its stations into multi-service spaces that increase traffic. As part of its loyalty strategy, the Waylet app also stands out, which already has more than 10 million users. Image | The English Court In Xataka | In 2022 Repsol began to apply very aggressive discounts at its gas stations. The CNMC believes that they were taking advantage

If the US attacks Iran with drones, it will be in for a surprise. Russia shielded its sky with an explosive weapon: Verba

by

It we count last week. In the Middle East, crises rarely erupt overnight. First pieces move away from the spotlight, discreet commitments are signed and deployments multiply that seem routine. Only later, when everything falls into place, do you understand that the board had been preparing for something bigger for weeks. Now we know that Washington has not been the only one that has prepared. Agreement sealed in the shadows. counted this morning in an exclusive the financial times that Iran and Russia signed a secret contract of almost 500 million euros for delivery of 500 lVerba portable spears and 2,500 9M336 missiles. It would be Tehran’s most significant move to rebuild air defenses devastated after the 12 day war against Israel. The Iranian request came just days after its integrated network was seriously degraded by Israeli and American attacks, which allowed enemy aircraft to operate with superiority over large areas of the country. The agreement provides deliveries until 2029although the media explained that there are indications of early shipments, and it is complemented with night vision devices and other equipment that points to a phased but urgent reconstruction. What are Verba and why do they matter. The Verba system is a portable guided missile infrared designed to shoot down drones, cruise missiles and low-level aircraft such as helicopters, operated by small mobile teams that can deploy dispersed defenses without depending on fixed radars vulnerable to bombing. These are not heavy strategic systems like lthe S-300 or S-400but rather a flexible tactical layer that complicates helicopter operations and low-level flights. Its adoption is rapid, requires less integration and allows Iran to reinforce critical points at a relatively acceptable cost for Moscow, which can supply them without weakening substantially its own defense against Ukraine. Verba missile carrier A military alliance despite sanctions. Apparently the contract was negotiated between Rosoboronexport and the Iranian Ministry of Defense, with intermediaries already sanctioned by Washington, in a context of growing cooperation that includes Iranian drones employed by Russia in Ukraine and a bilateral treaty signed in 2025. Moscow thus demonstrates that it has no intention of abiding by Western sanctions or the arms embargo reactivated by European powers, while Tehran tries rebuild the relationship following the perception that Russia did not come to their aid during the latest conflict with Israel. The flow of cargo flights and the reception of attack helicopters Mi-28 reinforce the image of a active and sustained military association. The largest deployment since 2003. It we count last week. The agreement emerges in parallel to a massive accumulation of American air and naval power in the Middle East, with dozens of F-35, F-15 and A-10 fighters deployed at bases such as Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan and Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia, in addition to two aircraft carrier groups led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford. In total, about 40,000 troops and a fleet comparable to the one before the 2003 invasion of Iraq support Donald Trump’s threats to impose a nuclear ultimatum on Tehran. Iran, for its part, warns that it would respond by attacking US bases in the region if hit. A reinforcement that changes the risk calculation. The new systems They will not turn Iran into a conventional rival comparable to the United States or Israel, of course, nor will they prevent sustained air campaigns if these are executed with technological superiority. However, they can raise cost and risk of specific operations, especially helicopter raids or low-altitude attacks, and prolong a possible conflict by making initial phases of aerial suppression difficult. In an environment where each shootdown would have a disproportionate political and strategic impact, the mere presence of hundreds of mobile launchers introduces a tactical deterrence variable. A preparation race. What does seem quite clear is that the combination Iranian rearmament and American deployment draws a scenario of maximum tension in which diplomacy and force advance in parallel. Tehran seeks to buy time, rebuild defensive layers and negotiate from a less vulnerable position. Washington tries to pressure with a demonstration of power without recent precedents in the region. What happens in the coming weeks will not only determine whether there is an attack or an agreement, but also whether the Russian-Iranian alliance is consolidated as a military axis capable of openly challenging the sanctions regime and reconfiguring the strategic balance of the Middle East. Image | ТАСС In Xataka | It is so small that it can barely be seen from space, but this secret island is the main problem for the US to attack Iran In Xataka | If the most advanced US nuclear aircraft carrier maintains its speed it will reach its destination on Sunday: a bad omen for Iran

We have been believing for years that intermittent fasting is the definitive weapon to lose weight. Science has another idea

by

During the last years, the intermittent fasting has gone from being something exceptional to becoming a nutritional strategy that there is more and more talk and that it has more followers behind it. And it is no wonder, since the promise is quite seductive as it does not focus on what you eat, but on when you eat, activating different metabolic switches to accelerate fat burning. Although there are also detractors behind. New data. The Cochrane library, considered a great world reference, published a few days ago a great review about intermittent fasting that acts as a bucket of cold water, since it suggests that this diet does not offer superior benefits to conventional weight loss diets. The backup. We are not talking about a small study whose validity can be questioned, but in this case the Cochrane researchers analyzed 22 randomized controlled trials that added up to a total of 1,995 participants. overweight or obesity. The objective here was to compare different fasting modalities, such as going 16 hours without being able to eat with eight hours of eating, fasting on alternate days or 5:2 diet compared to classic calorie restriction or inaction. What they found is that, when pitting intermittent fasting against regular dietary advice, the difference in weight loss is virtually zero. The data. Getting into the matter, when intermittent fasting was compared With standard calorie-restricted diets, the mean difference in weight change was a minuscule -0.33%. This difference can translate into that intermittent fasting may result in little to no difference in weight loss with the traditional method. Regarding quality of life, such as the feeling of energy, no difference was seen and, regarding the levels of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, fasting did not prove to be a panacea either, yielding results of “little or no difference” compared to the control diets. The small print. One of the most critical points of the Cochrane review is the certainty of the evidence, which they rated mostly as “low” or “very low.” This does not mean that the studies are poorly done, but rather that there are important limitations, such as risk bias, inconsistency in results, and lack of precision. But there is one fact that should worry anyone who decides to opt for this diet independently, without medical advice, since, although the evidence is uncertain, some studies pointed to associated side effects specifically to fasting. These include headaches, nausea, cold intolerance or even insomnia and lack of concentration. What is not yet known. Perhaps it is the most revealing thing about this scientific study, since there are still many unknowns surrounding intermittent fasting that invite further research. In this case, none of the 22 studies included data on “patient satisfaction,” which is important because we don’t know if people prefer to go hungry for a few hours in exchange for eating more later, or if they hate the process. And being comfortable with a diet is essential so that you don’t abandon it halfway through. In addition to this, none of the studies pointed to the relationship that may exist in chronic diseases that require significant dietary control, such as diabetes, and which is very common in the population. But one of the big problems in science today is duration, since most studies lasted less than 12 months. We don’t know if fasting is sustainable or safe beyond a year. It is not a miracle diet. What we do know is that intermittent fasting works, but the key point is that It is not superior to the tools we already had as a calorie restriction accompanied by a balanced diet and exercise. For the average patient, this is actually good news: it means that the The best diet is the one you can stick to. If someone finds it easier to skip breakfast with a 16:8 fast than to count calories at each meal, fasting is a valid tool. But if fasting causes headaches, you’re not missing out on any “magic” metabolic benefits from eating three times a day. Although in this process the most important thing is always to be advised by personnel who are qualified in nutrition to be able to have the best dietary plan, to have real objectives and, above all, not to get frustrated along the way. Images | VD Photography In Xataka | We believed that a vegetarian diet guaranteed longevity. In extreme old age, the data says just the opposite

Countries are desperate to raise their birth rates. They have a very simple weapon to apply: teleworking

by

He aging population is one of the most pressing problems for large economies around the world. The birth rate is a pillar in a country’s economy, since the economy, the labor market, education and health, among many other policies, depend on it. When governments talk about “birth crisis“, they almost always resort to the same repertoire of solutions: baby checks, tax deductions or daycare aid. The problem is that, after years of applying them, fertility in most rich countries continues on the ground. However, a new study raises a new perspective: what if the solution to the birth rate problem was in the way we work? In that scenario, teleworking appears as a surprisingly powerful lever. Telework to have more children. a study carried out by researchers at Stanford University has discovered that offering work flexibility and teleworking improves the fertility rate in couples in which one of the members teleworks. The researchers did not measure the number of births (natality), but rather the fertility indicator. That is, the number of children that participants say they plan to have. The result is difficult to ignore because someone who does not have free time or who considers that they could not take on the upbringing of a child, nor do they consider having one. That is to say, there is no such predisposition, which does not help the birth rate grows. According to the study, going from having no teleworking option to teleworking five days a week is associated with an approximate increase of 0.13 children per woman in terms of expected fertility. This is equivalent to an increase of between 7% and 8% over the average of the group analyzed. Birth and fertility are not the same. It should be noted that talking about birth and fertility represents different scenarios, and this confusion can distort the debate. The birth rate It is the number of births that occur in a country during a specific period. It is the most common data when talking about birth rate since it determines, in real terms, the number of annual births, and allows it to be compared with the number of deaths to establish the demographic balance. Fertility, on the other hand, is a background indicator. It represents the number of children a woman has (or is expected to have) throughout her life. It is usually expressed as Global Fertility Rate (TGF). The difference between both concepts is important. While the birth rate can vary from year to year (for example, advancing decisions or in response to certain policies) without changing the structural trend, the fertility rate is a long-term metric: it indicates whether a woman plans to have only one child (no matter the year) or more. Motivated to have children. Examples like South Korea or Japan They show how complicated, and how expensive, it is to change a downward birth rate trend. That is why the increase in the intention to have children, without making any investment or applying additional fiscal policies, is very striking. The results of the study suggest that, perhaps, the way forward is not to subsidize the birth of more children, but rather to make the organization of parents’ work compatible with their upbringing. It’s not for money: it’s for time. For years, the political response has been fairly predictable. Having children is expensiveso you have to put money on the table to lighten that burden. The problem is that, although in most homes they need two salaries To survive, the truly scarce resource is time to take care of the children. Teleworking and flexible hours have reduced this daily friction since it implies less time traveling, greater control over schedules and, above all, greater ability to react to unforeseen events. for child care. The report ‘Women in the Workplace’ prepared by McKinsey showed that the lack of flexible hours forces many women to reduce their hours or stagnate their professional career. On this point, the conclusions of the Stanford researchers fit with the data that Pew Research got In a previous survey: Even with the difficulties of reconciling family and work, the majority of respondents considered it necessary to continue working and did not want to sacrifice their professional careers. What they needed was a job that does not make work life and childcare incompatible. It needs investment, but it is cheap. The study concludes that to match the fertility rate achieved by teleworking, it would be necessary to apply fiscal policies and incentives at a much higher cost. Subsidized childcare can improve the situation, but none of these measures make it easier. child care on a day-to-day basis, nor does it encourage families to have more children that complicate logistics even more. The time availability and flexibility of teleworking does. This does not mean that the implementation of teleworking is free. Has organizational costs for companiesyou cannot telework in all sectors and it can generate inequalities between employees whose positions do allow teleworking and those who do not. In Xataka | We have been teleworking for four years and a study has reached a conclusion: working from home makes us happier Image | Pexels (Anastasia Shuraeva)

It was the US with a weapon that it did not know how to use

by

Until very recently, airspace was understood as a stable domain, regulated almost exclusively by manned civil and military aviation, with clear borders and protocols inherited from conflicts (along with the trauma of 9/11). The emergence of drones has begun to break that balance: first in lthe battlefieldsthen at the borders and now about the cities. The last example exposes that even simple perception is a trap. Drone war. Yes, because the accelerated expansion of drones as a military and criminal tool has placed the United States before an uncomfortable paradox– Protect your territory without turning your own airspace into a dangerous testing ground. For a decade, the Pentagon has developed a sophisticated arsenal of lasers, electronic inhibitors and high-power microwaves to shoot down dronesbut the rules for using them safely over cities full of commercial planes remain diffuse, or even erroneous, creating a gap between military logic and civil reality that is beginning to take its toll. The El Paso episode. Yesterday, the sudden closure of the El Paso airspace exposed that tension clearly, when the Federal Aviation Administration decreed extreme restrictions without prior warning, paralyzing commercial, medical and military flights within a radius of dozens of kilometers. The measure, initially planned for ten days, got up within a few hours, but left behind institutional confusionwith local authorities overwhelmed and the feeling that no one had a crystal clear and coherent version of what happened. Map published by the FAA after the closure of airspace Threat or ridicule. Then the contradictions began. While the administration maintained that the closure responded to a drone raid of Mexican cartels, multiple leaks pointed to a different problem: The hasty use of new anti-drone technologies by federal agencies without prior risk assessment to civil aviation. In this context, the intervention of Customs and Border Protection with a directed energy laser without prior preparation, provided by the Department of Defense, would have been the trigger for an extreme decision adopted by the FAA due to the impossibility of guaranteeing air traffic safety. A US Army AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel laser radar seen deployed near the southern border with Mexico in 2025 It’s a balloon’s fault. The subsequent revelation that the supposed hostile drone was actually a simple party balloon He turned the episode into a symbol of the new times and the risks of improvising in an environment saturated with sensitive technology. The lack of prior coordination, the lack of information shared between agencies and the speed with which an unprecedented closure was activated reminded many local officials of the hours after 9/11fueling rumors, theories and disproportionate fear among the population. In fact, it slipped the “nuclear” issue. The border as an involuntary laboratory. El Paso, along with key facilities like Fort Blisshas become a scenario where national security, organized crime and testing of advanced military systems come together. Although the use of drones by cartels for surveillance and smuggling has been common for years, their constant presence raises a question most disturbing: Why on earth did a known and recurring threat lead to such a drastic reaction this time, when similar incidents had been handled previously without closing the sky? A problem that becomes a ball. If you will, and beyond the specific incident, the El Paso closure reveals a structural challenge that is just beginning. As more sophisticated drones proliferate and increasingly powerful defenses are deployed, the coexistence between military technology and civil aviation will require clear protocols, real coordination and institutional transparency. Otherwise, each failed test, or each poorly explained interference, will continue to demonstrate that in the war against drones it is not only important to shoot them down, but also to prevent the remedy from be more dangerous than the threat itself. Image | FAA, US Army In Xataka | In its fight against drug trafficking, Mexico has taken note of the lessons of Ukraine: drones with machine guns In Xataka | The factories of deep America have reopened. And they all make the same “toy”: an army of combat drones

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.