With the Strait of Hormuz closed and oil production from Iraq’s south in free fall, Baghdad’s failure to maximize the Iraq-Turkey Pipeline is no longer a policy dispute. It is a national emergency.
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.
Operation Epic Fury has created a dramatic opportunity in Lebanon that the US cannot afford to miss. Sustained leadership and support for the Lebanese Armed Forces can result in real disarmament, eliminating Hizballah as an Iranian proxy, and dealing Tehran another massive defeat that would further undermine the Iranian regime and help bring about its collapse.
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.
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.
President Donald Trump said that the war against the Islamic Republic of Iran that he launched with Israel could last for four to five weeks with “the capability to go far longer than that.” Trump even left the door open to putting U.S. troops on the ground.
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.
Brian is joined by Dana Stroul, Director of Research and Shelly and Michael Kassen Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to examine US objectives in the Middle East in the midst of the ongoing war between the US, Israel, and Iran. Drawing on her extensive experience in US policymaking, most notably as the Pentagon’s top civilian official responsible for the Middle East from 2021 to 2023, Dana offers an insider’s perspective on this strategic moment. Together, Dana and Brian unpack the rapidly developing situation in Iran, the fragility of the ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, the shifting landscape in Syria after Assad, and the United States’ role in a region that may be on the cusp of transformation.
For nearly four decades, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei embodied the Islamic Republic’s certainty: a singular authority who shaped every major decision on war and peace, repression and reform, economics and ideology. His death, in a coordinated US-Israeli strike on his Tehran command compound on February 28, has ripped that certainty away in the most violent fashion imaginable.
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.
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.
Crude oil legally sanctioned by the United States and its allies today makes up an estimated 18% of global tanker capacity, or 6-7% of total unrefined petroleum flows — shares that have been growing. Increased pressure on Russian exports and US intervention in Venezuela have further constrained Russian flows and temporarily removed Venezuela, the smallest sanctioned producer, from the market. Iranian exports, however, remain largely untouched.
US President Donald Trump takes to the podium tonight to deliver the first State of the Union address of his second term.
“It’s going to be a long speech because we have a lot to talk about,” Trump said ahead of the address. The State of the Union—an annual speech delivered by the US president to Congress—typically focuses heavily on domestic policy issues, and that’s likely to be the case with tonight’s speech as well. Concerns about the health of America’s economy and growing public controversy about the Trump administration’s immigration policies are two of the domestic policy issues Trump will likely address.