The US and Israel entered the war with three goals, and these goals were in tension from the start.
As a fragile cease-fire takes hold in the Middle East, countries are jockeying to shape the peace. But one group remains largely absent: US ambassadors.
Trump’s active Middle East policy reflects a striking paradox. The United States is more visibly engaged in the region than the “America first” rhetoric suggests, yet its influence over regional outcomes continues to erode.
An operation that Donald Trump said could take Iran out “in one night” has now turned into a regional war that has just entered its sixth week, with the US president appearing increasingly frustrated over the situation.
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.
The United States and Israel have done significant damage to Iran’s military and security apparatus. Senior commanders have been killed at a pace rarely seen in modern warfare.
Iran’s leadership did not take long to respond to President Donald Trump’s latest address on the war. Regime-linked media dismissed the April 1 White House speech as a repetition of earlier claims, while officials and commentators close to the Iranian government framed it as further evidence that Washington remains uncertain about its own course. In the battle over messaging, Trump’s ambiguity is giving Iran’s narrative the edge.
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.
The US-Israeli war against Iran has created the largest disruption to global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies in modern history. There is a tremendous amount of economic uncertainty for Gulf states to navigate, and it will reshape the way they engage with one another and with Iran, Israel, and the United States for years to come. But this war has also laid bare how urgently the United States needs to update its own approach toward the Gulf states when it comes to energy.
“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 results of last month’s elections seemed to crystallize a fundamental divide between two competing visions for Hamas’ future. But the US-Israeli war against Iran has cast a heavy shadow over the group’s leadership selection process, shifting it from a contest between personalities to a wider struggle over Hamas’ strategic identity, ideological orientation, and relationship with the broader Middle Eastern order.
The US and Israeli conflict with Iran is currently just past the halfway mark, according to US President Donald Trump’s initial estimate that it would take four to six weeks to achieve his objectives, but for now there is no end in sight. Here are five fundamental, strategic questions that require more attention as the media and political debates fixate on the day-to-day breaking news and tactics of this war.
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.
