Editorial

The U.S. Navy has done something it hasn’t done since the final days of World War II: an American submarine has sunk an enemy warship with a torpedo . The target was the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena, struck in international waters off the coast of Sri Lanka, hundreds of miles from the Persian Gulf. While U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth described it as a “quiet death,” the reverberations of this attack will be felt for decades.

This is not just a tactical victory; it is a historical milestone. The last time a U.S. sub sank an enemy combatant was the USS Torsk on August 14, 1945. That such an event occurs now signals a terrifying normalization of conflict. What was once an unthinkable escalation—sinking a naval vessel far from a declared war zone—has become a bullet point in a Pentagon press briefing.

Strategically, the sinking of the IRIS Dena demonstrates the sheer, terrifying reach of American power. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, boasted that "to hunt, find and kill an out-of-area deployer is something that only the United States can do". The message to Tehran is clear: no waters are safe. The IRIS Dena had just participated in multilateral exercises with India, operating under the assumption of peacetime norms. It learned, tragically, that war has no boundaries.

Yet, for all the talk of "decimating" the Iranian navy and achieving "effects," we must not lose sight of the human cost. Sri Lankan authorities pulled 87 bodies from the water and rescued 32 sailors, leaving dozens more missing. These were sailors, performing routine duties far from the Strait of Hormuz, who likely never saw the Mk-48 torpedo that ended their voyage. As Australian maritime expert Jennifer Parker noted, "Sailors are sailors. Regardless of the politics, there should always be sympathy for those lost at sea".

This incident also raises uncomfortable questions about the expanding geography of the conflict. The IRIS Dena was sunk within Sri Lanka’s search-and-rescue zone, forcing a neutral nation to pick up the pieces of a war not of its making . It serves as a stark reminder that in modern warfare, no nation is truly an island, and the ripple effects of distant hostilities can wash up on any shore.

Ultimately, the sinking of the IRIS Dena is less a demonstration of victory than a marker of how deep into the unknown we have sailed.

The recent discussions among the Group of Seven (G7) nations on a critical minerals trade pact underline the growing geopolitical importance of natural resources that power modern technology. As the global economy transitions toward renewable energy, electric vehicles, and advanced digital systems, access to minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements has become a strategic priority. The initiative by the world’s leading industrial economies reflects not only economic planning but also deep geopolitical concerns.

For more than a decade, China has emerged as the dominant player in the processing and supply of many critical minerals. Although several of these minerals are mined in Africa, Latin America, and Australia, China controls a significant portion of the refining and processing capacity that turns raw materials into usable components for batteries, semiconductors, and renewable energy technologies. This concentration has created vulnerabilities for Western economies, particularly during periods of diplomatic tension or trade disputes.

The proposed G7 framework seeks to diversify supply chains and reduce dependency on a single country. Member states—including the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and the United Kingdom—are exploring mechanisms to coordinate investment, encourage responsible mining in partner countries, and develop processing facilities outside China’s sphere of influence. The objective is not merely economic competitiveness but also national security, as critical minerals are indispensable to defense technologies and strategic industries.

These discussions come at a particularly fragile moment in global politics. Ongoing conflict and instability in the Middle East have disrupted energy markets and intensified concerns about the resilience of global supply chains. The war has demonstrated once again how geopolitical shocks can ripple through international trade networks, affecting everything from oil prices to industrial production. In such a volatile environment, the concentration of critical mineral supply in one country appears increasingly risky.

Yet the proposed pact must also confront several challenges. Expanding mining activities raises environmental concerns and requires careful regulation to prevent ecological damage and exploitation of local communities. Moreover, developing new supply chains takes time and significant investment. Building refineries, securing transport routes, and negotiating partnerships with resource-rich nations will demand sustained political commitment.

For countries outside the G7, including emerging economies, the new mineral diplomacy could reshape global trade patterns. Nations rich in mineral resources may find new opportunities for investment and strategic partnerships. However, they will also need to balance competing interests among major powers.

Ultimately, the G7 initiative reflects a broader shift in international politics: economic security is now inseparable from geopolitical strategy. In a world marked by uncertainty, control over the materials that power the future may prove as decisive as control over energy once was.

• SAS Kirmani