Research & Commentary Results

Three months after the Iran war began, the United States and Iran are engaged in talks aimed at ending the crisis, even as both sides conducted limited military strikes against each other this week and a separate-but-linked conflict between Israel and Hizballah in Lebanon continued to escalate.

When Iranian drone strikes hit two of Amazon’s data centers in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in early March, amid the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran, much of the media’s reflex was to declare it the end of the Gulf’s artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions. That read is misguided, and it misses why what Iran was trying to accomplish failed.

Two and a half months into the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, what lessons can markets draw from the resulting global energy shock? Colby Connelly, MEI Senior Fellow, joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to assess the crisis’s impact on the energy industry. Together, they examine how producers are responding to the conflict in both the short and long term, how this moment differs from past energy disruptions, and how regional reverberations may shape international energy policies going forward.

As Washington and Tehran edge closer to escalation, the most critical line of communication keeping the crisis from spiraling is being run not by polished diplomats, but by an unlikely figure: a Pakistani general. Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful army chief, has quietly become the key intermediary in the U.S.-Iran standoff, managing what may be the most important backchannel between the two sides. The mediation has thrust Pakistan to the center of the crisis while exposing it to enormous risk.

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.

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.

The standoff in the Hormuz is not simply a question of whether Tehran can survive economic pressure, but whether Washington can sustain the pressure at an acceptable cost.

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.

As Lebanese, Israeli, and American teams prepare for their first-ever trilateral leaders summit, it is time to reflect on this opportunity and lessons from the past.