Policy Analysis

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.

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

If the Iranian threat to the Middle East is brought to an end, the loose alliance of actors who have long sought this outcome must manage their differences to avoid the regional mistakes made after World War I.

If Beirut fails to disarm the group, target its financial and political foundations, and hold it accountable for a long list of violations against the Lebanese people, a much bleaker alternative scenario will unfold.

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

Iran’s fractured opposition and years of repression make rapid regime change unlikely.

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.

By using Syria’s newfound resources as a coalition member and negotiating military assignments at the U.S. embassy, the two governments could offset many of the concerns raised by the withdrawal of American combat units.

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.

If President Trump gave the Lebanon front just a fraction of the attention he has directed toward Iran and Gaza, he could wind up with the newest Arab member of the Abraham Accords—and a Nobel Peace Prize.

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.

Washington Institute experts explain what U.S. officials and military planners should be on the lookout for as great power competitors and close allies outside the region consider their responses to the crisis.

The nuclear program is still the paramount threat, and both of the main options for permanently ending it are unpalatable—but Washington needs a plan nevertheless.

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.

Given his strong ties to the IRGC, Khamenei’s son might pursue extreme strategic options.

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.

The renewed conflict offers an opportunity to eradicate Hezbollah’s capabilities, potentially clearing the way for breakthrough diplomacy with Israel.

There is the fog of war, and then there is the Trump administration.

Much more so than even last year’s war, the two allies are equal military partners in the current fight, but the growing gaps between their publics could impede cooperation on the next set of major policy issues in the region.