Policy Analysis

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.

The security situation in the Gaza Strip is still tense after completing the first stage of President Trump’s peace plan, raising questions about how the parties will overcome the challenges of enforcing the ceasefire, disarming Hamas, transferring power, and launching reconstruction.

Concerns about the Uyghur file, investment risks, and other issues are still constraining the relationship to a certain extent, but fortifying those restraints will require Washington to exert further leverage on several fronts.

The NCAG’s viability will depend on producing quick, tangible deliverables, so the Trump administration, the Board of Peace, and the High Representative should stand ready to provide the requisite support on staving off Hamas and PA obstructionism and cutting through Israeli red tape.

The Trump administration needs to exert pressure on each of the “two Gazas,” pushing Hamas and its regional interlocutors on disarmament while pressing Israel to play a more constructive role and conduct phased withdrawals when merited.

U.S. envoys should be focused less on making a deal and more on how they can use the prospect of imminent military strikes to secure concessions on the nuclear issue, missile threats, treatment of protesters, and other matters.

Russia has been quietly reconsolidating its military patronage, energy ties, and future business prospects in Syria for more than a year, but Washington has multiple options for countering Moscow’s long game.

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.

Full Kurdish integration in Syria is one of the most important projects in the Middle East, but Washington must ensure it is accomplished without further violence, and without blowing the activities of various foreign players out of proportion.

The ongoing disarmament process is crucial, but completing it will be impossible without more attention to Hezbollah’s cash economy, judicial interference, political intimidation, and other elements of domestic power.

Meeting the moment requires greater investment and attention from Washington, including additional targeted security assistance, robust diplomatic efforts, expansion of the U.S. team tasked with handling the Lebanon file, and more.