Middle East & North Africa

Assaf Zoran argues that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities may have the opposite result of prompting an escalation in Iran’s nuclear developments, a pattern previously observed in response to kinetic actions attributed to Israel.

Assaf Zoran argues that it is crucial to hold Iran accountable and convey the cost associated with arming, training, financing, and promoting violence through proxies.

Mohammad Tabaar argues that the attacks on Red Sea ships unintentionally advance the Houthis agenda by allowing it to claim that it is fighting imperialism, and the attacks help Iran by fortifying its political foothold in the Middle East. Washington should therefore cease the strikes. It should, instead, work to halt the war in Gaza. The United States should also try to strengthen the region's diplomatic agreements and shore up its security framework. Otherwise, the Houthi-Iranian partnership will only grow stronger, as will Tehran's leverage in the region.

Assaf Zoran argues for all regional nations and international players to engage in continuous dialogue with the involved and fighting parties in order to mitigate the risk of escalation. Such talks should establish political, economic, and military disincentives for further escalation while fostering opportunities for de-escalation.

Mohammad Tabaar analyzes Iran's strategy to weaken Israel and divide the Middle East.

Nicole Grajewski writes that assessing the real benefits—and limits—of joining the so-called "anti-NATO" can help policymakers better understand what Tehran, China, Russia, and other participants are getting out of their summits.

Miscalculation is unlikely when open conflict would come with high costs for both countries, costs that neither their leaders nor their publics are willing to accept.

Right now, everything both sides do to strengthen their defenses looks to the other side like preparation for attack.