Policy Analysis

Two veteran U.S. officials join a former Israeli ambassador to discuss the effects and future consequences of the Trump administration’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program.

Fears of an “all-out” war with Iran have been greatly overstated, and they fail to account for the Islamic Republic’s overriding desire to avoid such an outcome and the diverse repertoire it has developed to prevent one.

Although definitively identifying the group responsible for the bombing may take more time, authorities in Damascus and Washington already have more than enough information to beef up their security cooperation and reassure Syrian minorities that they won’t be targeted.

Although the crisis has not yet checked all the boxes that would signal fatal regime vulnerability, the situation could change quickly due to shifting conditions on the battlefield, on the streets, or within the halls of power in Tehran.

Four experts assess how outside players might respond to the showdown, and whether Tehran will switch up its calculus on procurement, attack tactics, and other military matters as the fight goes on.

For regional countries seeking to transform their economies and partner with the United States in areas including AI, the current war poses risks that could reverberate in the global economy.

In the wake of retaliatory strikes on U.S. targets, a former Pentagon official assesses Tehran’s bad options and Washington’s best response.

The risk of nuclear breakout is probably greater today than before Israel’s military campaign, and simply taking out Fordow would not stop the regime from using suspected secret sites to produce nuclear weapons.

The most important restrictions include measures like permanently dismantling enrichment infrastructure and properly disposing of key materials and equipment, but policymakers need to be clear-eyed about the inherent limitations of even the strictest verification agreement.

The self-styled "resistance" is probably being held in reserve in case the United States joins the war, with militias noticeably restraining themselves so far.

Sudan's new prime minister was recently appointed to present a civilian face palatable to the international community; whether he can implement reforms in Sudan's complex environment as promised in his recent speech will depend on international pressure and his ability to navigate the country's power dynamics.

Experts assess the roles that various actors may seek to play during and after conflict, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqi militias, Palestinian factions, and international powers such as China, Russia, and the EU.

What does it mean for Damascus, for Washington, and for U.S. partners and allies now that the Trump administration has dismissed fifty years worth of economic sanctions against Syria?

Just as with the Hezbollah missile threat in Lebanon, completely eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat is not the best yardstick for Israel’s current campaign.

U.S. and Israeli experts assess the quickly evolving situation as the IDF continues striking targets across the country, Tehran retaliates with missile salvos, and the international community mulls how best to contain the crisis.

Over the past number of years, many Iraqis have become increasingly concerned about media restrictions imposed by Iraqi authorities, who have banned numerous applications, electronic platforms, and news websites.

A closer look at the technical indicators that experts and officials will be looking for to determine whether Israel’s campaign is setting the program back, and how much.

A compilation of analyses on the military and nuclear impact of Israel’s initial strikes, Tehran’s response options, the Trump administration’s next steps, public reactions inside Iran, and more.

Despite the Iran-Israel showdown, if European and Arab states prove they are willing to do the diplomatic and financial heavy lifting required for progress with the Palestinians, the reticent Trump administration might be encouraged to engage.

The breaking of the national security state is indeed a crisis, but it also represents an opportunity to build a compromise approach tailored to the world’s present-day threats, similar to the situation policymakers faced immediately after World War II.