All Policy Analysis by David Schenker

Given Hezbollah coup threats, Beirut may seek to proceed incrementally toward establishing a state monopoly on weapons, but Washington and Israel will expect quicker results this time.

The economic, political, and diplomatic fallout of the Iran crisis is bending the kingdom in multiple directions, but Washington can do much to ease the domestic stress, avoid bilateral friction, and address Amman’s growing rift with Israel.

Although U.S. officials should keep pushing Baghdad to move against these groups, the Iran war has demonstrated the need to seek other avenues of pressure and recalibrate the bilateral relationship.

Through their continued unwillingness to take on the militia and break Iran’s hold over Lebanon, Beirut and the LAF have effectively chosen the more calamitous path of war with Israel.

For the first time, the region is on the path to sidelining militias and reaping the potential stabilization benefits, though significant obstacles remain.

The international community has held nearly a dozen donor conferences to support Lebanon’s insolvent military and economy, but they all failed, largely because the country has not made the hard decisions necessary to help itself.

Without electoral law modifications, sanctions against pro-Hezbollah elites, prosecutions for long-delayed cases like the port explosion, and other urgent measures, the group and its allies could wind up regaining their grip in Lebanon during the next round of nationwide voting.

Israel may believe the tense status quo is sustainable, but Washington is frustrated about the potential implications for Arab normalization, Turkish military friction, and near-term economic plans.

Israel’s approval of the delayed export agreement is a welcome development, but U.S. officials should view it as the start, not the end, of efforts to ease tensions between two key peace partners.

Although Washington should keep pressing the Lebanese government to seize weapons and prosecute political assassins, the chances of Beirut actually confronting the militia appear increasingly slim.

Sudani did very well at the ballot box, but the peculiarities of Iraq’s long government formation process and the final distribution of parliamentary seats may leave the main Iran-backed coalition in the driver’s seat.

There will be no peace, sovereignty, or reconstruction for postwar Lebanon until more of the group’s weapons are confiscated, but Beirut appears increasingly unwilling to tackle that task outside the southern frontier zone.

Amman and Jerusalem need to worry about maintaining peace, not new arrangements in the West Bank.

Although regional peace agreements have survived the Gaza war and other recent crises, the increasingly explicit red lines being laid down by Arab capitals need to be taken seriously in Jerusalem and Washington.

The Gulf might be “the New Middle East,” but Washington should not forget that problems in “the Old Middle East” still set much of the regional agenda, raising the need for more consistent American engagement.

The government’s unprecedented decision to disarm Hezbollah is brave, but as U.S. officials have repeatedly discovered, continual pressure will be needed to ensure that Lebanon and Israel actually implement their obligations under the new plan.

Permanently enshrining Iran-backed terrorist groups inside the Iraqi state would be a massive blow to U.S. interests, so Washington’s reaction should be clear, proportionately harsh, and coordinated with other regional partners who have likewise been victimized by these groups.

After giving Lebanese officials a much-needed ultimatum for disarming Hezbollah and implementing financial reforms, Washington is now in danger of letting them once again punt these all-important tasks.

Despite the Iran-Israel showdown, if European and Arab states prove they are willing to do the diplomatic and financial heavy lifting required for progress with the Palestinians, the reticent Trump administration might be encouraged to engage.

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.