President Donald Trump has an opportunity to do something no American president has managed in nearly half a century: end the war between Israel and Lebanon for good.
Last Thursday, the US announced a 10-day cease-fire “to enable peace negotiations between Israel and Lebanon”. The State Department statement – reportedly agreed to by both governments – marked a significant diplomatic shift. It included an affirmation that “the two countries are not at war,” a commitment to work toward “full recognition of each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” as well as “achieving a permanent agreement that ensures lasting security, stability, and peace.”
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.
As the international community focuses on the regional and economic reverberations of the US-Israel-Iran war, the wartime experiences of ordinary Iranians and their aspirations for the future have received much less attention. Arash Azizi, a postdoctoral associate at Yale University and contributing writer at The Atlantic, joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to discuss the war’s repercussions for the Iranian population and how the outcome of the conflict may shape the peoples’ lives going forward. Together, they explore Iran’s internal politics, the viability of the opposition, and the conditions needed to achieve democracy in Iran.
The following study discusses the role of Lebanon’s gold reserves in the establishment of a currency board and evaluates four policy options: a true currency board, constrained central bank reform, full dollarization, and a unified managed float. Gold reserves are relevant under all four. The conclusion is consistent across them: no monetary framework, however carefully designed and however well backed, can substitute for the prior political decision on who bears Lebanon’s losses and how the state will finance itself sustainably.
When the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran a month ago, the Middle East was plunged into debilitating conflict. Nevertheless, Syria has remarkably just completed its most stable month in 15 years. Damascus and its international partners must capitalize on this opportunity.
Libya’s stability has taken on renewed strategic importance as the impact of the US and Israeli war with Iran reverberates through global energy markets. Sustaining existing Libyan oil production depends on a governing arrangement capable of keeping ports open, pipelines flowing, and revenues distributed without triggering conflict.
Israel’s escalating campaign against Iran-backed Hezbollah is rapidly turning Lebanon into one of the most unstable fronts in the wider US-Israel confrontation with Iran — pushing an already fragile state to the brink. The war is tearing at Lebanon’s sectarian and political fabric, displacing Shiite communities and deepening polarization between Hezbollah and its rivals.
MEI Senior Fellow Jaser AbuMousa joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to unpack how Hamas is navigating the US-Israel conflict with Iran and its impact on Gaza. Nearly two and a half years after the start of the Gaza war, international attention has shifted away from the humanitarian crisis in the devastated coastal strip. Meanwhile, Hamas’ primary state sponsor, Iran, has been severely weakened by US-Israeli military strikes and the death of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. AbuMousa examines how this could affect Hamas’ trajectory moving forward and its place within the Axis of Resistance, as well as what it all means for the Palestinian people.
As the war with Iran consumes regional attention, Gaza is again being pushed aside. That is not just a humanitarian failure. It is a strategic mistake that could squander a rare opening for political transition while allowing Hamas to weaponize abandonment once more.
Once again, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have dragged Lebanon into a war. But there are differences today. These differences are a cause for hope.
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.