An analysis of the Washington think tanks that promoted the Iran war, highlighting their historical role in advocating for the Iraq invasion.

Incoherent strategic goals and the “credibility trap” of maximalist rhetoric threaten to transform tactical military victories into a long-term strategic failure.

The conflict serves as a double-edged sword for Beijing, threatening energy supplies while offering opportunities to deplete U.S. strategic assets in Asia.

Washington must deepen its partnership with Iraqi Kurdistan by providing air defenses to counter Iranian-backed militia strikes and ensure regional stability.

Abu Dhabi’s offensive against Iranian financial networks provides a powerful new tool for U.S. sanctions to degrade Tehran’s regional proxy capabilities.

Washington hosts historic Israel-Lebanon talks to establish a “weapons-free” Beirut and a more rigorous, U.S.-led mechanism for disarming Hezbollah.

Iran’s newfound leverage over global shipping through the Strait of Hormuz complicates Trump’s efforts to secure a low-cost exit from the conflict.

The collapse of Kushner and Witkoff’s amateur diplomacy with Tehran underscores the dangers of replacing technical expertise with theatrical, transactional deal-making.

Washington’s planned Hormuz blockade is a high-stakes gamble that threatens global energy markets and risks a naval showdown with major powers.

Ukraine transforms from an aid recipient into a global security exporter, providing critical drone defense expertise to NATO and Gulf allies.