Analysis

The Israeli-U.S. military strikes on Iran that began on February 28 have done more than ignite a Middle Eastern war. They have sent shockwaves rolling across Asia, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Sea of Japan, exposing the brittle underpinnings of regional energy systems, straining diplomatic balancing acts, and forcing governments to make hard choices they have long deferred.

Nearly two weeks into the Iran war, one of Tehran’s most capable and disruptive regional allies, Yemen’s Houthi movement, has not entered the fight. The Houthis’ restraint reflects a strategic calculation by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

After months of trying to head off a US-Israeli war with Iran, Turkey now finds itself caught in the middle of it — and deeply concerned that a prolonged, regionalized conflict could pose serious security, economic, and political risks.

Following the tactical surprise of US-Israeli strikes on Iran, a crucial next step is the assessment of judgments about Iranian military sustainability, regime cohesion, escalation dynamics, regional spillover, allied responses, and plausible end states, and how those judgments interact with allied positioning, diplomatic activity, and economic constraints.

By attacking Iran without clear objectives or an exit strategy, the US and Israel turned what was the greatest strategic and chronic threat to regional security into an unpredictable set of imminent dangers. A fundamental task for US national security is to prevent this conflict from becoming a vortex that increasingly pulls in other powers.

The launch of large-scale US and Israeli strikes against Iran places Beijing in a strategically uncomfortable position. This campaign is the most significant US military operation since the Iraq War, unfolding across a region central to China’s energy security and commercial ambitions.

Disarmament is necessary in Gaza. It is the only way to realize the goals articulated in the internationally endorsed 20-point plan laid out by the Trump administration. But a policy approach that makes disarmament a prerequisite for action on governance, recovery, freedom of movement for Gazans, and any credible political horizon is structurally and strategically counterproductive.

Saudi Arabia has stepped up its efforts to unify and restructure Yemen’s anti-Houthi forces after the rapid expansion and sudden implosion of the United Arab Emirates-backed secessionist Southern Transitional Council following Abu Dhabi’s military withdrawal from the country.

The United States’ rapid military buildup across the Gulf has triggered a familiar anxiety in Tehran, but the Iranians’ reading of American intentions has grown sharper and more layered than at any point in recent years.

US President Donald Trump hosted an idiosyncratic gathering of global representatives in Washington on February 19 that included some key Middle East figures meeting under the banner of peace to discuss the next steps in Gaza just as the US was sending more military forces to the region to pressure and possibly target Iran.

Syria’s transition still faces a formidable array of challenges — from the implementation of the deal to integrate the SDF into state structures and the military, to the economy, reconstruction, transitional justice and accountability, refugee returns, and geopolitical tensions with Israel. However, a steady and significant decline in violence offers perhaps the most encouraging and consequential metric.

Whenever Iran is shaken by nationwide protests, as it was just last month, analysts and activists are consumed by the same two questions: will the country’s regime finally fall, and what will come next if it does? Answers abound.

Donald Trump’s first year of his second presidential term has been a roller coaster of twists and turns both at home and abroad—particularly in the Middle East. His regional focus was driven by two main factors: first, Trump’s own ego and sense of possible place in history; and second, the volatile, dynamic events driven by actors in the region.