Afghanistan-Pakistan

There is no quick path to limiting or reducing Iranian influence in Iraq. Tehran will react fiercely to American efforts to destroy the militias and zero-out its influence, and it would have multiple avenues to escalate through the porous 900-mile-long border between the two countries. Moreover, domestic Iraqi reaction, especially among elements of the Shi’a population, would be reticent at best and hostile at worst to intensified American military actions. Nor should it be an American goal to stoke a civil war among Iraq’s Shi’a that would give Iran new access points.

The Persian Gulf-Black Sea International Transport and Transit Corridor, which Tehran proposed eight years ago, remains relevant today in the context of strategic competition, as it offers Iran and participating countries an alternative trade route that bypasses traditional Western-dominated shipping lanes, potentially reshaping regional economic dynamics and geopolitical influence.

To abandon the Syria mission now would bring no meaningful benefit to the US, but it would swiftly and significantly empower America’s adversaries, like ISIS, Iran, Russia, and Assad’s regime.

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, the main question in Tehran is not so much what the incoming American president will do about Iran. Rather, it is about whether Tehran should negotiate with him.

Read MEI’s weekly briefing featuring expert analysis of key regional developments for the week ahead.

Under past reformist presidents, Iran repeatedly tried to build a grand bargain deal with the United States, entailing compromises over its nuclear program in return for negotiating spheres of influence across the Middle East. This September, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York, the current reformist president Masoud Pezeshkian confirmed that he was open to direct talks with Washington to end hostilities.

it is possible to extrapolate how the incoming second Trump administration may respond to the complex situation in the Middle East by examining the president-elect’s record during his first term, what he has said since, as well as public statements of his running-mate, Sen. J. D. Vance. Two main issues are likely to dominate Donald Trump’s regional agenda when he comes to power: Iran and Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

The following is a short abstract, offering the main analytical findings and policy takeaways from a newly released Middle East Institute report on post-war reconstruction in Syria.

Israel’s escalation of its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon has severely disrupted the cross-border flow of goods into Syria that have long served as a critical lifeline for Damascus. These interruptions have worsened existing shortages, triggering sharp increases in the prices of essential commodities for Syrian who were already struggling economically.

Last week, representatives from around 70 countries convened in Paris to pledge nearly $1 billion in aid for Lebanon. Moving forward, France and the US should work together to summon the political will needed to craft and implement a lasting political solution — one that can effectively safeguard against future wars between Israel and Lebanon.

Read MEI’s weekly briefing featuring expert analysis of key regional developments for the week ahead.

This policy assessment examines the statements and positions staked out by the Harris and Trump campaigns on the Middle East. The spotlight is on the past few weeks, with a stronger focus on two main issues that are likely to dominate the regional agenda of the next US administration: Iran and Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Islamist political system in Tehran is on the brink of experiencing perilous blowback for the foreign policy choices it has made. Whether Tehran continues to prioritize the fight against Israel or decides to look for ways to deprioritize the conflict as a national security matter will not be settled in the foreseeable future — or perhaps the matter will be taken out of Iran’s hands.

At last month’s Summit of the Future, the more than 190 UN member countries agreed to unprecedented new commitments on behalf of future generations, and they pledged to build a long-term future perspective into their mechanisms of governance, domestically and multilaterally. MEI’s Strategic Foresight Initiative program director Steven Kenney reflects on attending the summit and its outcomes.