Defense and Security

The joint al-Dumayr operation in mid-October was the fifth instance of coordination between the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS and the Syrian government to confront the Islamic State, amid Western calls for Damascus to officially join the international effort. What’s at stake and what are the potential scenarios moving forward?

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.

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 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.

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.

With its new government at the half-year mark and the UNIFIL international peacekeeping force’s mandate due for reauthorization at month’s end, Lebanon stands at a pivotal moment. In this episode of Middle East Focus, hosts Alistair Taylor and Matthew Czekaj are joined by MEI Senior Fellow Fadi Nicholas Nassar to evaluate whether the Lebanese state can reclaim its sovereignty, starting with the disarmament of Hizballah and the enforcement of a cease-fire.

During June’s Israel-Iran war, a quieter but significant battle played out in cyberspace, highlighting how Tehran has refined its use of digital tools to shape the battlespace, control domestic narratives, and project influence abroad. While largely ineffective in operational terms, Iran’s cyber response marked a new phase in its strategic evolution.

MEI Senior Fellow Ross Harrison breaks down how this foreign policy approach can help mitigate conflict—and how both Washington and Tehran may have undermined their own ambiguity during the recent 12-day war, with potentially lasting consequences for regional stability.

When the Israel-Iran war broke out and the United States decided to assist the Israeli side by striking Iran’s nuclear program, both Tehran and Washington expected Islamabad to side with their respective positions. This situation placed the Pakistani government in a politically sensitive and diplomatically delicate position.

Six months since the collapse of the Assad regime, the Russian military presence in Syria has remained entrenched in strategic locations such as the Hmeimim airbase and Tartous port on the coast, as well as at Qamishli airport in the northeast. This persistence has reignited an increasingly pressing debate about Moscow’s role in the new Syria.

The May 6 cease-fire between the United States and the Houthi militia in Yemen has had a consolidating effect on the balance of power inside the war-torn state and hardened the status quo of the country’s civil war. In turn, the outcome of Israel and Iran’s subsequent 12-day war has the potential to temporarily shake up this status quo once again; but Yemen’s fracturing anti-Houthi coalition is unlikely to be able to exploit that opportunity.