Policy Analysis

The U.S. metric for effective cooperation shouldn’t be whether Syria is willing to fight Iran’s proxies in Lebanon or Iraq, but whether it continues advancing regional stability by securing its borders, limiting the flow of Iranian weapons and fighters, and coordinating politically with neighbors.

A trio of leading regional journalists discuss how Emiratis, Israelis, and Jordanians are weathering the Iran crisis, what outcomes they are rooting for, and how their relations with Washington and each other might evolve as a result.

For the estimated 7 to 15 million Kurds in Iran, the current war represents a narrow window for change, albeit one where the parameters are unclear.

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.

If Washington wants to calm the markets and reach its other energy objectives more quickly, it will have to find a way of de-escalating a shipping crisis that Tehran is clearly taking advantage of in the Strait of Hormuz and beyond.

Three experts examine how Moscow, Beijing, and European capitals are navigating the crisis and what their choices reveal about the future of the global order.

Tehran helped the Assad regime crush unarmed protests with staggering violence; now it has turned those same tactics on its own people.

The war’s effects on Syria have largely fallen below the radar, yet no one should forget how much has changed there since 2024, nor how important it is to preserve the government’s accomplishments against Iran and its partners while acknowledging the conflict’s local economic consequences.

Even as the war proceeds, much more must be done to identify how Tehran and its terrorist partners are adapting their procurement and fundraising networks to evolving conditions in the Middle East.

Beijing has been mostly talk and little walk so far, but once the war ends, it may decide to help Tehran rebuild militarily in return for oil.

Renewed warfare with Israel aside, Hezbollah will not be permanently undone unless one of two scenarios occurs: regime change in Iran, or the complete dismantlement of the group’s domestic financial system and political power.

Tehran is targeting the soft underbelly of the U.S.-Israeli campaign—the oil sector and vulnerable Middle Eastern states—but allied officials can counter this strategy by taking concerted steps to bolster their regional partners, stabilize oil markets, and suppress the regime's military capabilities.

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.

Three experts discuss how Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthis, and pro-Iran militias in Iraq have reacted to the war so far, outlining steps Washington and its regional partners can take to keep them from escalating further.

By offering military expertise and technology to the Gulf states, Kyiv has given the U.S. government a unique opportunity to counter Iran and Russia while boosting the security of American partners and forces in the region.

Instead of regime change, try regime weakening.

The two conflicts may appear unrelated, but an al-Qaeda haven in Iran, threats from the Islamic State, and separatist ambitions could supercharge the risks to regional and global security.

The de facto halt to Gulf oil shipments has already helped Moscow win back India as a major oil customer, while the rise in global prices could greatly refresh its depleted Ukraine war budget.

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

Beijing is just as concerned about its Gulf partners as it is about China’s “old friends” in Tehran.