Iran

Join us for an expert conversation on Iranian proxies and their likelihood of escalation in light of Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran. Watch live starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT (1700 GMT) on Thursday, March 12, 2026.

Four experts explain why reversing the conflict’s effects on oil and gas production and tanker traffic from the Gulf will likely take much longer than many people realize, with only limited supply alternatives in the meantime.

While the United States and Israel are winning based on measures like the degradation of Iran’s naval force and missiles, a broader victory will require securing domestic support and avoiding the maximalism that has hindered past American military efforts.

Putin has been using his position in the region to chip away at Russia’s isolation during the Ukraine war, and another Middle East regime change won’t do much to change that strategy.

Washington Institute fellows assess how Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraq’s Hashd, and other Iranian proxies and allies are responding to the war, as well as how the Trump administration and partner governments might counter the risk of terrorist attacks given Tehran’s long track record of foreign plots.

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?

From FDR to the Bushes, Washington’s pledges to bring “freedom” to the Middle East have ended badly.

Holly Dagres reflects on the rise and fall of Iran’s late leader, who maintained brutal theocratic rule at home and an anti-Western “axis of resistance” in the Middle East for decades.

Believing that conflict is more likely than a diplomatic deal and that Israel will be involved in the fighting, Jerusalem has been intimately coordinating its military planning with Washington despite certain differences in their policy priorities.