Policy Analysis

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?

Read or watch urgent insights into America’s objectives in Iran and the policies that would best advance U.S. security, help the Iranian people, and improve the prospects for long-term regional stability.

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

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.

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.

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.

To gauge the true effectiveness of the LAF's disarmament effort, one must go beyond the number of patrols, raids, and seized weapons and take a hard look at what it has done—and not done—to search private property, target underground facilities, stop cross-border smuggling from Syria, and transparently dispose of armaments.

In addition to weakening the Palestinian Authority, reducing the feasibility of a two‑state solution, and heightening the risk of escalation, continued implementation of Israel’s latest West Bank decisions could undermine Saudi normalization and other major Trump administration goals for stabilizing the Middle East.

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.

Some 20,000 Islamic State-affiliated individuals are now unaccounted for, and no one has a plan for what to do about this mix of committed radicals, at-risk victims, and other escapees.

Rather than choose between a narrow nuclear deal and open-ended war, the United States should conduct limited military strikes against Iran’s missile program and security services and double down on a pressure strategy that was working.

Longstanding sensitivities between Algiers and Rabat mean that Washington will need to tread delicately in its renewed effort to resolve the dispute.

Neither side seems to want a war, but they fear the costs of backing down and are apparently convinced the other side will blink first.

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.

Join us for a special conversation with the former top U.S. envoy for Ukraine. This event has been postponed.

This season of Decision Points tackles the toughest U.S. foreign-policy debates, from the brink of war in Iran to the painful aftermath in Gaza and the new government in Syria.

Setting aside the broader array of deep Western policy concerns about Iran—including its terrorism sponsorship, direct and proxy aggression against Israel and the Gulf states, and brutal violence against its own people—what nuclear terms would negotiators have to insist on to avoid the setbacks of the JCPOA process and keep the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons for the long term?

President Trump’s recent military adventures seem driven less by confidence and canny strategy than by fear of America losing status on the world stage, including in the Middle East.

Damascus will not take the difficult steps to reconcile internal animosities and rebuild destroyed infrastructure unless outside supporters—led by the United States—speak with one voice about their expectations and red lines.

Clear-eyed recounting and a detailed roadmap can give U.S. officials and the American public a better view of what security and governance measures the new Syrian government has taken so far, and what gaps and pitfalls remain in the path of lasting stability.