Publications

The restrictions recently imposed on Anthropic — including the U.S. administration’s directive to limit access to certain models for users and entities outside the United States on national security grounds[1] — constitute a significant milestone in the evolving relationship between technology, national security, and foreign policy. Whereas over the past decade, the discourse surrounding digital sovereignty has focused on issues such as privacy, data localization, regulation, and cloud infrastructure, recent developments point to a transition to a new phase in which access to advanced artificial intelligence capabilities is becoming a strategic asset in itself. In this reality, not only data or chips are becoming objects of government policy, but also the models themselves. This article argues that the Anthropic case is not an isolated incident but rather a manifestation of a broader trend, in which artificial intelligence is becoming a central component of national power. As a result, access to advanced models may in the future become a policy tool, a mechanism of geopolitical influence, and a means of advancing strategic interests. For Israel, this development necessitates a reassessment of its approach to technological sovereignty and its policies in the fields of artificial intelligence, computing, and infrastructure, as well as a rethinking of its broader security paradigm. [1] The directive conveyed to Anthropic on June 12 by the Trump administration required the company to terminate access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models for all foreign users, including the company’s foreign employees, users outside the United States, and international clients. According to reports, the company was given a very short timeline to implement the directive, under the threat of civil and criminal sanctions in the event of non-compliance. At a later stage, a limited exemption was granted, allowing the use of Mythos 5 for a small number of critical infrastructure organizations within the United States, while Fable 5 remained restricted.  

How should Israel address the fact that more and more aspects of the conflict are being debated and decided in the international arena?