All Policy Analysis by David Schenker

Israel’s cross-border incursion is understandable but may have gone too far, raising the need for U.S. intercession on merging Syria’s disparate forces, easing sanctions, deconflicting with Turkey, and other urgent stabilization tasks.

What do Palestinians, Israelis, and external players see as the best option for Gaza and its people now that the first phase of the ceasefire is complete?

Despite well-founded worries about the rise of an Islamist government in Syria, the new rulers cannot be any worse than the previous regime—especially now that they are largely disarmed and disinclined to partner with U.S. adversaries like Iran and Russia.

Baghdad has good reason to be concerned about the relationship’s trajectory, but that doesn’t mean Washington should proceed with troop withdrawals just yet.

Under heavy pressure from the Trump administration, the Arab states with the most to gain—and lose—in Gaza should be spending the next two weeks doing everything they can to reach consensus on bold, concrete counter-proposals.

The new president and prime minister do not have a strong track record of confronting Hezbollah, but Washington should still be bold in supporting their stated commitments to reform, disarmament, and economic recovery.

Choosing a reform-minded president would be a good first step, but absent a concerted effort to consolidate the setbacks to Hezbollah, the organization will simply reassert its murderous grip.

The Hashd may already be deterred somewhat by recent events, but Trump will likely seek to maintain the pressure by withholding annual military assistance to Baghdad.

Four experts discuss the agreement’s detailed security provisions, the prospects for successful implementation, and the potential impact on other regional players.

Despite the wartime rancor, the peace treaty continues to deliver invaluable economic and security dividends to both states.

Absent a policy shift in Beirut, Lebanon will remain a satrapy of Iran, and the current window of opportunity to eradicate the Hezbollah threat will close.

Israel’s campaign has greatly diminished Hezbollah, presenting a chance for Beirut to end the war and push back against the group and its Iranian sponsors—if Lebanese elites are up to the task.

Three former U.S. officials discuss the challenges—and opportunities—that will greet the next administration in year two of the post-October 7 era.

With prospects low for a near-term diplomatic breakthrough, the Lebanese group can decide how far this conflict escalates.

In addition to addressing each country’s concerns about border sovereignty, smuggling, and other irritants, Washington should emphasize the longer-term need to return to the peace treaty’s military limitations after the Gaza war.

As the war in Gaza seemingly winds down, the old rules no longer apply in the north.

Given the current lack of viable security alternatives on the Israel-Lebanon border, Washington may try to patch up UNIFIL’s many deficiencies—but it must do so with a clear understanding that the force has repeatedly failed its mission and squandered its credibility.

A former Israeli military planner joins three experts to discuss each side’s current calculus and the U.S. policy implications if they opt for war or a truce.

An American-led diplomatic initiative to separate their forces at the border appears to be falling short, and time is running out.

If Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel widens, the group could use its large missile and drone arsenal to attack Cyprus, the allied military presence based there, and a wide array of shipping and energy assets in the East Mediterranean.