ایران

Although their diplomatic and economic overtures are on the rise, bilateral ties remain largely superficial for now, indicating a shared anti-Western posture rather than risky strategic cooperation.

Should a negotiated deal prove elusive, policymakers will need to consider how to define a successful strike, Iran’s potential responses, and whether a strategy of prevention can be sustained.

When it comes to fixing serious problems with the economy, energy, and other sectors, the reformists have been just as ineffective as the hardliners, eroding any legitimacy they might claim to reopen nuclear negotiations with Washington.

Mismatching objectives and means has repeatedly produced failure and undermined consensus, but Washington no longer has the luxury of bad statecraft on pressing issues like Iran’s nuclear program.

With preparatory peace talks in full swing and the war set to enter its fourth year, Washington must take a pragmatic approach to enlisting Arab help and ensuring that the outcome does not empower Moscow and Iran.

Rather than choosing between diplomacy and military action, the Trump administration should think of these options as mutually supportive, sequencing its actions in hopes of achieving the best and least costly outcome.

The regime’s fears of new oil restrictions, simmering domestic unrest, eroding regional deterrence, and unpredictable U.S.-Israeli military action can all be leveraged to steer Khamenei away from racing toward a nuclear weapon.

After blows to Iranian proxies across the region, reformists led by President Pezeshkian are prioritizing diplomacy and economic recovery, whereas hardliners are lamenting lost battlefield opportunities and seeking to preserve the regime.

Iran’s Middle East “axis of resistance” and the Eurasian axis it shares with China, Russia, and North Korea are increasingly challenging the global and regional order, highlighting the need for more partnerships and a comprehensive counterstrategy with special efforts focusing on Tehran.