Research & Commentary Results

The limelight for American foreign policy shifts to Beijing this month, where US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will meet on May 14-15 to address a long list of unresolved issues. But the Iran war and still unfolding geo-economic calamity resulting from it cast a long shadow. One thing to watch for is whether China or the US feels like it has a stronger hand in light of recent events in the Middle East.

The Middle East is both central to key United States interests and prone to instability. Yet US national security and defense strategic guidance has struggled to account for the unique demands of the region. Calls for strategic divestiture from the region have grown in prominence among analysts and policymakers alike in recent years.

Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 has entered a sobering phase. The kingdom’s most ambitious megaprojects, conceived a decade ago during an era of oil-fueled confidence, are colliding with fiscal reality and a far more volatile external environment shaped by regional conflict and energy market disruption. What is unfolding is not the collapse of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) diversification agenda, but a forced recalibration: a shift away from architectural spectacle toward economic pragmatism, reinforced by tightening fiscal space, institutional reprioritization under the Public Investment Fund’s (PIF) new strategy, and growing exposure to regional security risks.

President Donald Trump now appears to share a view gaining traction in some policy circles: that sustained pressure on Iran’s oil sector could inflict lasting damage on its production and eventually force Tehran to compromise. The thesis is appealingly simple, yet dangerously incomplete.

In the Trump administration’s diplomatic track with Tehran, one crucial variable is missing: steady US engagement with its Arab partners, particularly in the Gulf, on what the strategic endgame with Iran looks like.

For two decades, US drones hunting terrorists across the mountains of South Asia were the symbol of American military power: precise, lethal, and unmatched. That era is now over. Drones are no longer exquisite tools of counterterrorism and have evolved into something far more common and destabilizing: cheap, expendable, and mass-produced tools of attrition.

Operation Epic Fury has delivered tactical gains without a viable strategic end state. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, Iran’s leadership has reorganized, and the diplomatic track has fractured.

The opposition in Congress is attempting to force a war powers vote on the Trump administration’s Iran operation, with an eye toward the 60-day deadline on military action legally imposed on the executive branch; and key defense-spending measures are also on the immediate horizon. These actions on Capitol Hill could shape the trajectory of how the US moves forward in Iran and the region — and influence Americans’ overall appetite for long-term engagement in the Middle East.

The Iran war has posed significant immediate challenges for Turkey, including rising energy prices. But Turkish officials think that Ankara could reap benefits from the war in the long term.

Did the presence of American military bases in the Gulf monarchies draw those states into the American-Israeli war against Iran, a war they had no say in initiating and no voice in prosecuting? That is certainly the feeling among some citizens of those states.

The central failure of Operation Epic Fury is strategic. Five weeks in, neither of its declared objectives – regime change as framed by U.S. President Donald Trump, nor the elimination of an existential threat as framed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – is within reach. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. Iran’s leadership has reconstituted under Mojtaba Khamenei. The diplomatic track that might have constrained escalation has been shattered.

More than a month into the US-Israeli war with Iran, the central question is no longer whether China can avoid the costs. It cannot. The more important question is whether others will emerge even less able to bear them.

As a fragile cease-fire takes hold in the Middle East, countries are jockeying to shape the peace. But one group remains largely absent: US ambassadors.

Riyadh’s deepening engagement in Somalia reflects a calculated strategy to shape the emerging Red Sea security order, counter UAE and Iranian influence, hedge against U.S. uncertainty, and safeguard alternative energy export routes following the Strait of Hormuz closure.