All Policy Analysis by مایکل آیزنستات

Loosening Tehran’s grip on the strait and its disruption of the global economy would entail not only reducing threats to navigation, but also increasing pressure on the Iranian economy in order to deter further attacks and create leverage for diplomacy.

With Iran seemingly intent on continuing its strikes against Gulf targets and regional leaders mulling whether and how to respond, what can policymakers and military planners expect to see next in terms of likely target sets, risks to civilian areas, concerns over air defense munition supplies, and potential repercussions for energy and commercial shipping interests?

Washington Institute experts assess the immediate implications of U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran, including the regime’s future after major leadership losses, reactions inside Iran and Lebanon, the fallout for the Gulf states, the contours of potential diplomacy once the fighting stops, and more.

The conflict in June 2025 laid bare longstanding misconceptions about escalation management with the regime and could hold lessons as the United States contemplates further military action.

Military strikes, stringent sanctions enforcement, and help for the opposition could sharpen the multiple crises that may eventually prove the regime’s undoing.

Three experts discuss the rapidly changing situation in Iran, including the status of opposition elements on the ground, the U.S. interests at play in the crisis, and Washington’s policy options for bolstering both.

Understanding the background of the twelve-day war and the considerations that shaped Iran’s past nuclear calculus can help illuminate the factors most likely to influence its future proliferation choices.

While the recent military strikes against its nuclear program may further incentivize Tehran to go for the bomb, they may also complicate such efforts and give Washington more leverage to dissuade it.

Fears of an “all-out” war with Iran have been greatly overstated, and they fail to account for the Islamic Republic’s overriding desire to avoid such an outcome and the diverse repertoire it has developed to prevent one.

U.S. and Israeli experts assess the quickly evolving situation as the IDF continues striking targets across the country, Tehran retaliates with missile salvos, and the international community mulls how best to contain the crisis.

A compilation of analyses on the military and nuclear impact of Israel’s initial strikes, Tehran’s response options, the Trump administration’s next steps, public reactions inside Iran, and more.

Washington Institute experts discuss what challenges must be addressed in negotiating a new nuclear deal or, failing that, planning a military campaign to degrade or destroy the program.

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.

Despite questions about the utility of its huge missile arsenal—whose importance has only increased since the collapse of the “axis of resistance”—Iran will likely double down on this capability to ensure the viability of its military strategy.

The decision would require tradeoffs affecting the security, survivability, and military credibility of Tehran's nascent arsenal.

Although recent military setbacks have fueled Iranian talk about a possible nuclear breakout, uncertainty about the risks, costs, and utility of weaponization may give the United States leverage to ensure that Tehran continues to hedge.

Experience shows that a balanced strategy blending deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment can more effectively contain Iran.

The goal of destroying Hamas will require a prolonged military effort, but the longer the fighting drags on, the less likely Israel will be to retain the freedom of action needed to achieve its war aims.

A more rigorous understanding of how political and strategic cultures interact to affect the conduct of states could aid intelligence analysts and policymakers.

آمریکا باید بر خطراتی که گسترش جنگ دربر دارد تأکید کند و تهران را به مهار نیروهای نیابتی و شرکایش ترغیب کند.