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.
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.
The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting. Iran is on the defensive — its military capabilities were badly degraded by last year’s 12 days of Israeli and US strikes, and growing protests at home have made the regime look more vulnerable than it has in years.
Today’s decision taken by the Lebanese government — to declare all of Hizballah’s security and military activities illegal — is a landmark development. But how the government and the Lebanese Armed Forces implement this directive now that a new round of attacks has actually taken place will be the ultimate test of their credibility.
The latest cycle of U.S.-Iran escalation has followed a familiar script: sharpened rhetoric from the United States, calibrated military signaling by Iran in the Persian Gulf, indirect diplomacy through Oman, and Israeli warnings that remain deliberately ambiguous but unmistakably real. Yet beneath this choreography lies a more consequential development inside Tehran. The current crisis is forcing Iran’s political class to reassess its central foreign-policy wager of the past decade: that deepening alignment with Russia and China would provide strategic insulation against Western coercion.
Against the backdrop of one of the largest US military deployments to the Middle East since 2003, MEI Senior Fellow Alex Vatanka joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to assess the situation inside Iran on the eve of potential war. Weeks after the Islamic Republic’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protesters and as negotiations with the US fail to find common ground, Donald Trump is reportedly weighing options for military action against Iran. Vatanka breaks down the regime’s strategic calculus, the current dynamics of Iran’s opposition movement, and the likely domestic political consequences of a military strike.
Brian sits down with Holly Dagres, Libitzky Family Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to discuss Iranian public opinion and protest movements. Dagres, who was born in Los Angeles and moved to Iran at age thirteen, offers a rare insider perspective on the views and aspirations of the Iranian people. The conversation explores the formative experiences of her teenage years in Iran, the roots of the country’s powerful women’s movements, the power of youth voices, and US policy toward Iran.
After more than 50 years of brutal dictatorial rule and 13 years of civil conflict, the first year of Syria’s transition has been complex, imperfect, and fraught with difficulties. However, despite some significant challenges, Syria is clearly stabilizing. To sustain this progress, the United States must remain engaged.
The Abraham Accords have represented a remarkable shift in U.S. Middle East policy. They reframed Arab-Israeli normalization as a result of shared interests – within the Middle East and directly with the US, rather than as a byproduct of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Signed in September 2020, on the last leg of the first Trump administration, the Accords brokered by Washington normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, followed by framework agreements with Morocco and Sudan. From the American perspective, the Accords were intended to break decades of diplomatic stagnation in the Middle East in order to establish a regional framework aligned with American strategic objectives.
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.
In November 2025, the United States sought and obtained approval for a United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 2803) endorsing the formation of a Board of Peace (BoP) and International Stabilization Force (ISF) to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan agreed to by Israel and Hamas the previous month. The ISF’s stated role is to help secure and demilitarize the Gaza Strip, primarily by facilitating the decommissioning of weapons, protecting civilians, and training and advising burgeoning Palestinian police forces. In the intervening months, however, progress on standing up the ISF has stalled, and conflicting messaging from US officials provides more questions than answers.
Hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj are joined by MEI Distinguished Military Fellow Mick Mulroy to discuss the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy (NDS) and its implications for the Middle East. While serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Middle East from 2017 to 2019, Mulroy helped prepare the 2018 NDS, giving him an insider perspective on US defense planning. Together, Taylor, Czekaj, and Mulroy unpack what the new strategy means for US priorities globally and for the Middle East in particular, including how it could be reflected in a potentially looming military strike on Iran.