Research & Commentary Results

Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.

Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.

The central challenge facing Lebanon today is whether the country will graduate to functional statehood or continue struggling to survive. Yet with Lebanese officials now insisting that the state “monopolize arms” and become the decisive arbiter on matters of war and peace, a relevant question arises: Where, territorially, does Lebanon begin and end?

The October 2025 cease-fire and hostage-release deal that ended the Israel-Hamas conflict marks the beginning of a complicated post-war phase. The agreement has created important opportunities to advance stability in the Middle East and build a lasting and sustainable peace marked by enhanced regional security and integration, but there are considerable risks to manage. Achieving these goals will require coordinated international action along multiple lines of effort: security, rule of law, recovery and reconstruction, responsive governance, and steady and focused diplomacy to build confidence among key parties. 

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a mutual defense pact on September 17, 2025, declaring that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” The wording of the agreement sparked speculation that Pakistan might use its nuclear capabilities to defend Saudi Arabia. MEI’s F. Gregory Gause contends otherwise, offering insight into the history and strategic calculations driving the deal. To learn more about the deal, visit our website.

Following Israel’s September 9 strike on Hamas targets in Qatar, Pakistan has taken swift and significant foreign policy steps in response and adopted an unusually assertive stance. This shift was largely influenced by Pakistan’s military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. The latter is determined to enhance his country’s strategic autonomy and diplomatic leverage in an increasingly complex international environment by positioning Pakistan as a key security actor and an emerging middle power on the global stage.

The Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, signed in Riyadh on September 17, is far more than a bilateral pledge. It represents a profound reordering of alignments in the Gulf and South Asia, reflecting and reinforcing the broader erosion of US preeminence in the Eurasian security architecture. While much of the initial commentary centered on the striking commitment of a wealthy Gulf monarchy to the defense of a nuclear-armed South Asian state, as well as the question of whether Pakistan had in fact extended its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the deeper story is arguably China’s potential advance.

After two terrible years — beginning on the horrific morning of October 7, 2023 — there is now a chance the Gaza war could end. This chance exists not because the 20-point proposal released by the United States on September 29, 2025, is a model of diplomatic detail or nuance. It exists because its patron, President Donald Trump, appears determined not to take “no” for an answer.

Israel’s September 9 strike on Hamas leaders in Doha rattled Gulf capitals and revived a decades-old debate over whether the region needs a NATO-style defensive alliance. MEI Senior Fellow Jason Campbell joins hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj to unpack why past attempts at collective defense have fallen short, whether this moment is different, and what the crisis means for US security strategy in the Middle East.

The European Union has announced plans to sanction Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If adopted, the move would mark a historic shift in EU-Israel relations. MEI’s Iulia Joja unpacks the proposal’s background, what the sanctions would entail, and their potential impact on the EU’s position in the Middle East.

On the fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords, MEI’s Brian Katulis reflects on their durability and future: “These Abraham Accords will not be broken. They’ll be bent, but I think they’ll stay in place. But they won’t expand in any way until there’s progress on the Palestinian question.” He unpacks the origins of the agreements, their strengths and limitations, and the key challenges that must be addressed for them to grow stronger.

The reverberations of Israel’s strike on the Hamas negotiating team in Doha yesterday are still rippling across the globe and will continue to for the foreseeable future. Its ramifications are profound and will alter the geopolitical landscape not just in the Middle East but likely on a global scale.

The most striking thing about Donald Trump’s foreign policy at the seven-month mark of his second administration is how it has failed to improve America’s overall strategic position in the world. It is still early days, but the Trump team’s frenetic flurry of actions, coupled with attention-seeking and often incendiary rhetoric, has served to obscure a poor record of scoring significant international wins for America.

At the end of August, the future of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), established nearly 50 years ago, goes on trial in New York, where the Security Council will debate the renewal of its mandate. Nearly two decades after its transformation under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL is now part of the problem it was created to solve. Ten thousand blue helmets from almost 50 countries, including major North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, failed to stop the latest conflict between Israel and Hizballah, and, if business continues as usual, will fail to prevent the next.

All eyes this week are on Alaska, where US President Donald Trump will hold a pivotal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine war. But the United States remains consumed by several domestic issues, including continued strains over policing, immigration, and checks and balances inside America’s system of government. All of this comes at a time when Trump’s domestic political standing continues to slip lower, including among members of his own party.