The most recent cross-border hostilities between Afghanistan and Pakistan show how tensions have crossed a dangerous threshold.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat” is a well-known axiom attributed to the ancient Chinese military general and strategist, Sun Tzu. With the Iran war now at the one-month mark, it is evident that the Trump administration failed to outline a clear end state or devise a workable war termination strategy before initiating Operation Epic Fury on February 28.
The decision U.S. President Donald Trump made to attack Iran was a high-stakes gamble. The gamble is not really in the military campaign itself. It is whether a massive air campaign can trigger a popular rebellion that takes down the regime in Tehran. This could pay off brilliantly, but it could also fail miserably.
The United States and Israel both hope for the grand prize: the emergence of a new regime in Iran to replace the Islamic Republic. For the US, this would close the chapter on a hostile and at times violent relationship that has endured since 1979. For Israel, this would see the end not only of a regime with a deep ideological commitment against it but also the foe that Israel sees as behind all fronts of the war it has fought since October 7, 2023.
Despite a dazzling military onslaught, an Iranian regime that faces a threat to its very existence is demonstrating an entirely predictable willingness to stay the course at all costs. As things stand now, the joint US-Israeli war risks ending in military victory but becoming a strategic failure.
The Israeli-U.S. military strikes on Iran that began on February 28 have done more than ignite a Middle Eastern war. They have sent shockwaves rolling across Asia, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Sea of Japan, exposing the brittle underpinnings of regional energy systems, straining diplomatic balancing acts, and forcing governments to make hard choices they have long deferred.
Nearly two weeks into the Iran war, one of Tehran’s most capable and disruptive regional allies, Yemen’s Houthi movement, has not entered the fight. The Houthis’ restraint reflects a strategic calculation by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
After months of trying to head off a US-Israeli war with Iran, Turkey now finds itself caught in the middle of it — and deeply concerned that a prolonged, regionalized conflict could pose serious security, economic, and political risks.
Following the tactical surprise of US-Israeli strikes on Iran, a crucial next step is the assessment of judgments about Iranian military sustainability, regime cohesion, escalation dynamics, regional spillover, allied responses, and plausible end states, and how those judgments interact with allied positioning, diplomatic activity, and economic constraints.
By attacking Iran without clear objectives or an exit strategy, the US and Israel turned what was the greatest strategic and chronic threat to regional security into an unpredictable set of imminent dangers. A fundamental task for US national security is to prevent this conflict from becoming a vortex that increasingly pulls in other powers.
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.
On February 28, the US and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iran. MEI defense experts weigh in on the military and regional consequences.
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.