Attiya Ahmad

Six months into the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, Southeast Asia’s exposure to a conflict thousands of miles away has proven durable rather than transient — and it is beginning to function as a genuine stress test of the region’s institutions, not just its energy bills.

Brian is joined by Amb. (ret.) Yael Lempert, Vice President for Outreach at MEI, to discuss her career in diplomacy and the importance of US diplomatic efforts abroad. She shares stories from postings across the Middle East in Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli, Jerusalem, and Amman and examines how her personal and professional experiences shaped her approach to the work. Together, Brian and Yael discuss the realities of life in the Foreign Service, the core tenets of American diplomacy, and why it matters in today’s Middle East.

The U.S.-Iran war has become the most consequential American military engagement in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion. Despite periodic ceasefires and diplomatic efforts, the conflict has revealed that 21st-century power is not determined by military dominance alone. The United States has demonstrated unmatched force-projection capabilities, severely degrading Iran’s conventional forces, yet battlefield success has not produced a durable political settlement or fundamentally altered Tehran’s strategy. Instead, the conflict has settled into a cycle of coercion, adaptation, economic pressure, proxy warfare, and renewed confrontation.

Taiwan has proposed an 18% increase in its defense budget for 2027, pushing military spending above 3% of GDP as Chinese military and political pressure grows. The move comes as the United States remains engaged in its six-month war with Iran and has deployed its last aircraft carrier in the western Pacific to the Middle East, temporarily leaving the region without a US carrier presence.

North African governments have sought to remain outside the US-Iran conflict, regardless of their differing alignments and preferences. Geography insulates them from the fighting, but not from the consequences. That duality is the region’s predicament: what makes North Africa useful to others is what leaves it exposed.

Of all the fronts in President Trump’s peacemaking agenda, the South Caucasus has delivered the most concrete results. The August 2025 Washington Declaration, signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan and witnessed by Trump, marked an important step toward peace in the region. The two sides initialed a peace agreement and advanced plans to unblock regional connectivity, including through the establishment of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), which would connect Azerbaijan to its Nakhijevan exclave through southern Armenia. Implementation of TRIPP has since made notable progress, but construction has yet to start. A breakthrough on those two tracks would, in turn, unlock Armenia–Türkiye normalization, transforming a long-fractured region into an area of trade and interdependence.

Wars don’t just end. They get interpreted, reinterpreted, and turned into strategic doctrine. That is what happened after the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, a conflict that saw the United States back Tehran’s Iraqi adversaries. The war taught Tehran three lessons it never unlearned: that Washington wants the Islamic Republic gone, that Iran stands essentially alone in the world, and that it cannot survive a direct, overt fight with the U.S. and Israel.

Gulf Cooperation Council states are investing hundreds of billions in AI infrastructure, data centers, and semiconductor capabilities, making technology central to post-oil economic diversification. Yet this expansion faces a critical constraint: severe water scarcity turns AI growth into a challenge, as data centers in some of the world’s most water-stressed territories strain already overextended hydrological systems. The U.S.-Iran war has also underscored the physical vulnerability of the infrastructure supporting these ambitions. Together, these pressures raise pressing questions about the sustainability and scalability of Gulf states’ AI-driven development strategies.

Within 48 hours this week, Iran filled six of the most important posts in its battered military and security establishment. Read together with the biographies and mandates behind them, the appointments show how Tehran is drawing lessons from successive wars and preparing for a prolonged period of insecurity, without proving it has abandoned negotiation.

In an August 9 interview with Axios, when asked about the endless swings of the Iran standoff, he shrugged it off as familiar territory. “It’ll work out in the end. It always does. It’s like a chess game.”

Behind the rhetoric sat a harder fact.

With sanctions repealed, Syrian policymakers must ensure that growing volumes of credit reach beyond the narrow political and commercial networks that have generally dominated Syrian finance. That will require a credit strategy aimed at sectors and regions historically excluded from formal finance. Syria’s specialized state banks offer an imperfect but ready-made mechanism to do so.

The United States has long confused Iran for a rational actor with a low pain threshold, sensitive to battlefield losses and vulnerable to domestic unrest, which would bring it to the negotiating table. Each of those assumptions is wrong.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to the Iran war has been defined by a sustained effort to avoid direct entanglement. That restraint was notable given Riyadh’s position as Iran’s principal Gulf rival, its close security relationship with Washington, and its exposure to regional escalation. The kingdom made clear that it would not permit its territory or airspace to be used by any party for military action against Iran, avoided rhetorical alignment with Israel, and preserved the diplomatic channels with Tehran that were restored in 2023.