All Policy Analysis by Michael Eisenstadt

America’s failure to operate effectively in the gray zone against a third-tier power like Iran raises questions about its ability to counter much more potent actors like Russia and China.

Areas for especially timely U.S.-Israel cooperation include climate resilience, agtech, and medical research, as well as longstanding work in the military and security arenas.

The main lesson of the nuclear fatwa is that Tehran’s national security decisions are guided by interests, not ideology, and that progress in negotiations is possible if framed in terms of "regime expediency."

Many of the administration’s early Middle East security efforts will boil down to crisis management, but new frameworks like the Abraham Accords may provide opportunities to address longer-term problems.

The new administration could face an Iranian military strike as early as inauguration day, along with multiple threats from the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and other actors down the road, all requiring clear demonstrations of U.S. resolve.

Three experts on Iranian politics and strategy assess the possibilities of last-minute dramatic developments between the two adversaries before the U.S. election.

Tehran’s entire modus operandi is designed to pressure Washington and its allies but avoid all-out conflict, and distorting this reality so close to a U.S. election will only hinder an effective policy response.

American security force assistance missions to Arab states have had only limited success, in large part because they do not train local units to fight in a manner well-suited to their cultural preferences and operational requirements.

Given the dilemmas involved in retaliating for recent acts of sabotage and the death of Qasem Soleimani, Iran will likely defer any substantial military action against U.S. targets until shortly before or after the November election.

For forty years, Iran has operated in the gray zone between war and peace. Military analyst Michael Eisenstadt explains an approach that could deter Iran while reducing risk of escalation.

Discussions about lifting the ban tend to focus on major weapons systems Tehran might acquire abroad, yet the most important long-term impact may be on its ability to upgrade existing capabilities and strengthen domestic arms production.

Three experts discuss how Washington can manage escalation and catalyze diplomacy while still using its military instruments to apply pressure.

An in-depth look at how the Islamic Republic manages escalation in the gray zone between war and peace, leverages asymmetries to achieve disproportionate effects, and employs its hybrid force structure for maximum effect.

Since a maximum pressure policy requires maximum deterrence, the president should avoid tweets and actions that undercut U.S. credibility regarding the use of force, while authorizing the requisite rules of engagement.

The best way to counter Iran’s asymmetric strategy in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is a U.S. gray zone strategy, which can help manage escalation and buy time for the administration’s pressure policy to work.

Despite its measured approach thus far, Tehran may come to view the latest showdown as an existential conflict with an irresolute adversary, warranting greater risk-taking on its part.

The former head of U.S. naval operations in the Gulf joins two military and diplomatic experts for a discussion on Iran's strategic calculus, allied perspectives, and Washington's policy options.

Washington should reduce tensions, open lines of communication, and restore deterrence, though managing the contradictions between these objectives will be challenging.

The regime or individual hardline elements could opt for a number of provocations, from detaining foreigners to launching disruptive naval and cyber operations.