Research & Commentary Results

While most media attention was focused on its global economic policy moves, the Trump administration continued to keep the Middle East high on its agenda this past week, with the president sending a letter to Iran’s supreme leader and his team directly engaging with the Palestinian group Hamas. This continued engagement on the region’s top two strategic questions, Iran and Arab-Israel affairs, contrasted with America’s hands-off approach to Syria, which saw some troubling violence.

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.

Nasrallah’s funeral is one of the most consequential moments for Lebanon & the Levant. Will the show of force mark the start of Iran’s campaign to sabotage an emerging American order? Much depends on what the US does next. MEI’s Firas Maksad offers insights & recommendations.

With the signing of a presidential memorandum on Feb. 4, the administration of Donald Trump has returned to a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, but circumstances have changed drastically since the policy of intensified sanctions was originally crafted during his first term. Regional geopolitics will present the White House with a new set of variables, while changes in the petroleum markets will affect how the administration approaches sanctions on oil exports.

The Trump administration’s Middle East approach in its first three weeks back in office was filled with plenty of sound and fury. It’s still too soon to tell whether all of the noise signifies much of anything for the region, yet there are few promising signs of a smooth ride ahead.

In his second term in office, President Donald Trump faces a Middle East undergoing multifaceted upheaval and an Islamic Republic of Iran currently in its weakest and most isolated position since the founding of the regime in 1979. Yet far from permanently subdued, Tehran continues to move closer to building a nuclear weapon, and it is trying to preserve its regional network of proxies and non-state allies. Trump now faces an important strategic choice on Iran policy. This report analyzes three overarching dynamics: the shifting strategic landscape across the Middle East in 2023-24; the impact of these shifts on Iran and its Axis of Resistance network; and Iran’s current position and standing at home and in the region. It concludes with a series of strategic-level recommendations for the new administration.

A very different Middle East will greet President-elect Trump this month compared to the region he experienced during his first term. However, there are opportunities to advance American interests for a more stable and less conflictual Middle East, which might not require the kind of intense US commitment we have seen over the last quarter-century.

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

Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has provided several strategic opportunities for Iran to increase its foothold in the Greater Black Sea Region. A closer analysis of Iran’s deepening footprint there is necessary to inform how the next administration in Washington and the new European Commission can strengthen and better coordinate their policy responses.

In only six days, a broad coalition of advancing opposition forces coordinated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has captured all of Idlib province, almost all of Aleppo province, and a sizeable stretch of northern Hama — a humiliating defeat for Bashar al-Assad and illustrative of the fragility of regime rule in Syria.

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.

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.

The Middle East has experienced an extraordinarily tumultuous year, as the ripples from Hamas’ assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, continue to fuel hostilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the waters of the Gulf. Amid all of this, Syria has received very little attention, despite its central role in Iran’s regional agenda. Now the Biden administration is reportedly “hopeful” that Bashar al-Assad will soon permanently block Iran’s ability to support Hezbollah in Lebanon and is postured to reward Damascus for doing so. At best, such calculations should be described as optimistic; at worst, fanciful.