ایران

With preparatory peace talks in full swing and the war set to enter its fourth year, Washington must take a pragmatic approach to enlisting Arab help and ensuring that the outcome does not empower Moscow and Iran.

Rather than choosing between diplomacy and military action, the Trump administration should think of these options as mutually supportive, sequencing its actions in hopes of achieving the best and least costly outcome.

The regime’s fears of new oil restrictions, simmering domestic unrest, eroding regional deterrence, and unpredictable U.S.-Israeli military action can all be leveraged to steer Khamenei away from racing toward a nuclear weapon.

After blows to Iranian proxies across the region, reformists led by President Pezeshkian are prioritizing diplomacy and economic recovery, whereas hardliners are lamenting lost battlefield opportunities and seeking to preserve the regime.

Iran’s Middle East “axis of resistance” and the Eurasian axis it shares with China, Russia, and North Korea are increasingly challenging the global and regional order, highlighting the need for more partnerships and a comprehensive counterstrategy with special efforts focusing on Tehran.

Nujaba's immediate allergic reaction to regime change in Syria is a bellwether of how vulnerable Coordination Framework militias feel as pro-Iran hierarchies come tumbling down.

From stability in Jordan to the future of Kurdish autonomy, Lebanese sovereignty, and Iranian nuclear proliferation, officials must prepare quickly to prevent or manage—and in some cases even encourage—further shocks in the Middle East.

As long as the Islamic Republic’s decisions are dictated by rigid ideological imperatives, any shift in Tehran toward pragmatism in response to the new Trump Administration will likely be superficial at best.

The decision would require tradeoffs affecting the security, survivability, and military credibility of Tehran's nascent arsenal.