Research & Commentary Results

The leaked Signal chat among top US administration officials discussing military strikes against the Houthis laid bare the central problems with Trump 2.0’s nascent national security approach: a strong inclination to prioritize tactics and propaganda in statecraft without a clear and practical strategic framework to deal with the biggest challenges in the world and in the Middle East.

Endemic corruption in Libya continues to deter foreign investment, cripple public services, and erode trust in government. This dismal situation is driven by the ongoing power struggles among Libya’s political and military elite. Recently, bad actors in both Libya’s east and west have undertaken a spree of arbitrary arrests and detentions that the United Nations Support Mission in Libya has now warned are not only illegal, but creating “a climate of fear.”

President Donald Trump’s administration dialed up its use of military power in the Middle East this past week just as it took more steps to dismantle American institutions central to advancing peace and stability through diplomacy.

In response to the request for information (RFI) from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) regarding the “Development of an Artificial Intelligence Action Plan” in support of the objectives set forth in Executive Order (EO) 14179, the Middle East Institute (MEI) offers five recommendations to solidify the United States’ position as the global leader in AI innovation while addressing critical ethical, regulatory, and infrastructural imperatives.

Reflections on a recent visit to Baghdad. Much has changed and ordinary life has resumed in Iraq’s capital, but deep challenges remain.

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.

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.

Syria’s national dialogue, held in Damascus at the end of February, was intended to chart the country’s future, one that would have been unthinkable just three months earlier. However, the process and outcomes of the dialogue were flawed, left critical questions unanswered, and raised new concerns.

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.

This massive distraction of the Trump administration’s Gaza non-plan and the even more serious move of dismantling America’s ability to shape and influence events abroad together carry three risks for the Middle East.

Observing the unfolding of President Donald Trump’s second term from the Middle East is as confusing and disorienting as it must be from the United States. In Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan, urgent concern is focused on Trump’s surprise plan to take over the Gaza Strip, displace its population, and rebuild it as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In Israel, the right wing is extremely pleased with Trump’s gift, but they don’t know what he has planned for the West Bank. In the Arab Gulf monarchies, leaders are generally happy to be dealing with Trump again but are alarmed by the recklessness of his Gaza plan and concerned about the potential impact his energy and tariff policies could have on their economies.

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.