Existing frameworks explain intelligence failure as a breakdown of collection, cognitive bias or organizational dysfunction. However, they do not explain why valid intelligence is dismissed as 'irrational' or 'implausible' when facing culturally asymmetric adversaries. Recovering Robert B. Bathurst's neglected work, this article maps the structural dissonance between 'low-context' Western and 'high-context' strategic logic, analysing Pearl Harbor, Yom Kippur, 9/11, and October 7th, to demonstrate how adversaries have exploited predictable blind spots rooted in divergent assumptions about rationality, risk, and violence. The article introduces the Asymmetric Logic Framework as a diagnostic tool to reduce predictable incomprehension before the next surprise.
Can broken trust be repaired? This study examines the sociopolitical processes through which trust becomes 'repaired', 'rebuilt' or 'restored' following incidents and crises in relations between allies. Drawing on several bodies of literature, including International Relations (IR) scholarship on security community and on practices, we develop a framework for analyzing public performances that we argue play a significant role in restoring trust and trustworthiness. We illustrate the argument in two cases of 'broken trust': the Snowden disclosures and the Trump shocks. The paper ends with speculative reflections on the future of transatlantic cooperation.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the speed and scale at which intelligence organizations collect, analyze, and disseminate information. In turn, some are optimistic that AI will reduce the risks of intelligence failures. To evaluate this claim, this article puts AI debates in conversation with the literature on intelligence failures and strategic surprise. The article makes two core arguments. First, AI technologies are not likely to alleviate most causes of intelligence failures. Second, AI is generating new and unpredictable pathways to intelligence failures. Rather than offering a panacea, AI creates novel risks that may result in new sources of intelligence failures.
