Research & Commentary Results

On March 10, 2025, Ahmed al-Sharaa, the president of Syria, and Mazloum Abdi, the commander-in-chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces, signed a historic agreement, ending a long-running divide between Damascus and the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Now, two months after the deal was signed, how far has it progressed, and what are the main obstacles and disputes between the parties during this transitional phase?

As the EU prepares for its annual review of sanctions imposed on Syria, it faces a moment of reckoning — an opportunity to demonstrate whether its policies not only continue to be principled and legal, but also in line with its strategic interests. They no longer serve the purpose for which they were designed, and the EU should let the entire sanctions regime on Syria collapse unconditionally and immediately.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Ambassador James Jeffrey joins host Brian Katulis to unpack the Trump administration’s early moves in its second term and what they signal for US foreign policy in the Middle East.

President Donald Trump reached the 100-day mark in his second term this week seeing a sharp drop in his domestic political standing. This comes less than two weeks before Trump embarks on a key Middle East trip to the Gulf. The administration may be looking to the presidential visit as a chance to achieve some progress, but the region remains fraught with uncertainty and US policy in the Middle East rarely provides domestic political dividends.

Following seven years of diplomatic deadlock, Washington and Tehran have resumed nuclear negotiations — and for the first time in years, there are signs of real momentum.

Alex Vatanka, MEI Senior Fellow and author of The Battle of the Ayatollahs in Iran, joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to analyze the current round of talks, the technical issues under discussion, and the political stakes on both sides. He explores Iran’s economic and domestic pressures, US red lines, and the role of key players like Israel, China, and Oman in shaping the negotiations.

This article is published as part of the Perry World House workshop “U.S.-Iran Relations Under Trump 2.0: Lessons Learned and Likely Scenarios.”

Two years on, the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and wrought terrible destruction.

President Donald Trump is focused on realizing two transformative breakthroughs that his predecessors failed to accomplish: an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, centered on a tripartite US-Saudi-Israeli deal, and an agreement between the US and Iran. Both would be historic achievements. So far, however, progress in each case has proven difficult and plodding.

Iran is accumulating enough near-weapons-grade enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon within weeks or months, not years. President Donald Trump, having withdrawn the United States in 2018 from the nuclear deal that would have postponed that possibility, is now appealing for negotiations with Tehran. But in the Middle East, the nuclear question does not concern only Iran.

Countries in North Africa and around the world are increasingly prioritizing a strict definition of sovereignty and tending toward transactional diplomacy. Understanding the motivations behind North Africa’s “sovereignty-first” approach can help the United States and Europe build mutually beneficial and durable links with the region in this new reality.

After decades of managing tensions through careful balancing, Turkey and Iran now find themselves increasingly at odds following recent shifts in the regional balance of power. With Ankara emboldened and Tehran on its back foot after the fall of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the struggle for influence between the two neighbors and long-time rivals is escalating in both Syria and Iraq and could spread well beyond their borders.

The work of the Syria Strategy Project and the considerable policy recommendations found in this report present a realistic and holistic vision for Syria’s recovery and reintegration into the international system.

President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 4 doubled down on his disruptive and contentious domestic policy agenda. Foreign policy, including Trump’s approach to the Middle East, was mostly an afterthought. Though he said little about Middle East policy in his speech, Trump’s team is taking an irregular approach on the twin issues of Israel-Arab ties and Iran that may not produce the stability and prosperity it seeks.

Afghanistan’s neighborhood is in the midst of a consequential restructuring of its security architecture. Key regional actors Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and China have been continuing to adjust their defense plans and security partnerships to meet the growing threats posed by domestic and cross-border terrorism. At the same time, these four countries have also been looking for new ways to fill the vacuum in southern Asia left by the United States military’s departure from Afghanistan.

Either maintaining Russia’s military bases in Syria or finding an alternative outpost in the Mediterranean will prove extremely difficult for Moscow. And part of the problem with pursuing the latter option, particularly if in Libya, is that it would require a full-on transformation of Russia’s military presence model — from more traditional bases designed to establish deterrence by showing the flag in the region to building up a military and logistical operation inside a security “gray zone.”