Research & Commentary Results

The current government in Lebanon is keen to encourage financial recovery and find a new path to economic growth. A thorough understanding of the causes behind the country’s recession and the factors constraining a recovery are necessary to shape policy priorities. These are also important as an input into the discussions of the 2026 budget and to the ongoing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Using the wrong framework for these decisions could yield low economic growth, which would be harmful for a quick and decisive economic recovery. Conversely, improved economic outcomes and broad buy-in, following public consultations, will ease the implementation of politically difficult reforms. Thus, policymakers must take great care to develop a narrative about how to achieve progress in the short and medium terms that is adjusted to local circumstances.

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?

US President Donald Trump started off his week by flying to Israel and Egypt to mark the Gaza cease-fire and release of the last remaining Israeli hostages. But as these positive developments unfolded in the Middle East, the Trump administration’s overall agenda remained weighed down on other fronts.

The October 2025 cease-fire and hostage-release deal that ended the Israel-Hamas conflict marks the beginning of a complicated post-war phase. In a new MEI Policy Memo, Brian Katulis breaks down why it matters for the US and the relevant policy considerations.

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.

The September 17 Saudi-Pakistani defense agreement generated a wave of overheated commentary about Saudi Arabia now residing under a Pakistani nuclear umbrella and how a new strategic reality was in the offing in the Persian Gulf and South Asian regions. Analysts need to slow their roll. Extended deterrence is an extremely difficult thing to pull off. The devil is in the details, about which we know nothing.

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.

President Donald Trump used his speech this week before the United Nations General Assembly to reinforce his unique style of US foreign policy-making and levy criticisms against others, including the UN itself. But Trump did little to create a framework for crafting solutions to address problems and thorny security challenges.

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 coming weeks may prove decisive in Europe’s long struggle to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On Aug. 28, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany announced they will trigger the “snapback” sanctions mechanism. Whether Europe’s gamble succeeds will determine both the future of non-proliferation and the credibility of Europe as a strategic actor.

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.