Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
related 9.06 — strongly supporting 436 facts
The relationship between the United States and Iran is defined by a long history of diplomatic tension, sanctions, and military conflict, as evidenced by the 1979 hostage crisis [1], the JCPOA negotiations {fact:11, fact:36}, and recent military strikes {fact:2, fact:25, fact:32}. Their bilateral dynamics are further characterized by mutual animosity [2], with Iran positioning itself as an adversary to U.S. hegemony {fact:3, fact:17} while the U.S. employs containment strategies including economic sanctions {fact:14, fact:40}.
Facts (436)
Sources
An Integrated U.S. Strategy to Address Iran's Nuclear and Regional ... carnegieendowment.org 121 facts
procedureThe United States should support the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in monitoring Iran's nuclear activities by providing diplomatic and financial support, technical resources, and information sharing.
accountSecretary of State Rex Tillerson engaged with the Iranian government on the margins of the UN meetings in September 2017 to resolve implementation issues and demonstrate U.S. oversight of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
perspectiveThe United States should not discourage allies and partners from engaging in civil nuclear cooperation with Iran, such as in safety, security, regulation, and nuclear medicine, provided such cooperation is permitted under the JCPOA.
perspectiveThe United States must fully comply with its JCPOA commitments to ensure that the potential restoration of sanctions would effectively impact Iran's economy.
claimUnilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran are insufficient to moderate Iranian behavior and could trigger an Iranian response and a process of escalation.
claimIran was forced to the nuclear negotiating table in large part because the United States designed and coordinated a broad multilateral coalition to sanction Iran.
claimUnder the JCPOA, the United States is committed to lifting secondary sanctions and allowing non-U.S. entities to conduct business with Iran, with specific exceptions for U.S. industries in aviation, agriculture, and medicine.
perspectiveThe cornerstone of U.S. strategy regarding Iran should be to dissuade and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state or a threshold state capable of acquiring nuclear weapons within a matter of weeks.
perspectiveCoercion, including military operations, intelligence activities, and targeted sanctions, should serve as the backbone of the U.S. strategy to address Iranian nuclear and regional challenges.
perspectiveThe author argues that the United States can help strengthen independent Iranian economic activity to undermine opaque, regime-controlled economic conglomerates that facilitate the IRGC’s economic reach.
claimThe author notes that it will be legally and politically difficult for U.S. policymakers to certify that Iran has made the substantial progress necessary to allow limited U.S. commercial ties, and that private U.S. companies may avoid the Iranian market due to the high-risk business environment and due diligence costs.
referenceThe JCPOA functions by Iran accepting verifiable limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the United States and the European Union lifting sanctions that targeted the nuclear program.
perspectiveThe United States should maintain the possibility of future corporate involvement with Iran, despite the current political climate.
claimIncreasing commercial ties with the United States is a polarizing topic in Tehran, where pragmatists welcome such ties, but hardliners are skeptical of U.S. motivations and prefer working with Asian and European partners who impose fewer restrictions and do not criticize Iran's domestic behavior.
perspectiveThe United States should maintain a channel for dialogue with Iran despite active counter-efforts, because Iranian cooperation is necessary to end civil wars and the two nations share common interests.
perspectiveThe United States should prioritize keeping Iran out of the Golan Heights and Israel's border areas over limiting Iranian control of lines of communication in Syria and Iraq.
claimIran views cyber warfare as a credible retaliatory threat against the political and economic institutions of the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
perspectiveIranian pragmatists view détente with the United States as a critical prerequisite for sustained economic growth in Iran.
perspectiveThe United States should use its influence in Baghdad to weaken the Popular Mobilization Units, which are Shia militia groups often supported by Iran, and press the Iraqi government to decommission them or integrate them into the Iraqi security forces.
claimA small, enduring U.S. military presence in Iraq provides political influence that the United States can use to check Iran's policies and seek negotiated political outcomes.
accountThe administration of U.S. President George W. Bush attempted to intimidate Iran militarily and support Iranian democracy activists between 2000 and 2008, yet during this period, Iran attacked U.S. forces in Iraq, causing approximately 1,000 U.S. casualties, and the Iranian reform movement withered.
claimIran is more likely to be amenable to regional or global nuclear initiatives than to approaches that single it out, though Iran frequently cites double standards regarding the United States and Israel.
procedureThe effective use of engagement by the United States aims to: 1) provide a reliable and low-cost vehicle to issue warnings, clarify intentions, underscore bottom lines, and emphasize choices available to Iran’s leadership and the costs of those choices; 2) offer a mechanism for de-confliction and de-escalation, particularly in acute scenarios driven by miscalculation or inadvertent accidents; 3) demonstrate to U.S. partners, particularly those in Europe and Asia, that the United States is willing to engage constructively on issues of shared interests.
claimRussia acts as a significant check on United States efforts to counter Iran's nuclear and regional challenges, and even an improvement in U.S.-Russia bilateral relations would not fully eliminate tensions regarding Iran policy.
perspectiveRussia condemns U.S. military actions against Iranian interests but maintains a higher tolerance for Israeli military actions.
perspectiveThe United States should actively encourage the respect of human rights in Iran.
perspectiveThe United States should scrutinize transfers of nuclear or dual-use items through the Procurement Channel established by the JCPOA and approve them only when consistent with the deal's limitations on Iran's nuclear program.
perspectiveThe most effective U.S. engagement strategy with Iran may require utilizing multilateral mechanisms and working in concert with international partners.
perspectiveThe author suggests considering limited options to allow direct U.S. corporate involvement with Iran in exchange for the moderation of Iran’s nuclear, missile, and regional policies.
accountSince the U.S. drawdown from Iraq in 2011, the United States has maintained a force presence of roughly 30,000–40,000 troops in the Middle East to conduct missions such as operations against the Islamic State, ensure freedom of navigation in the Gulf, and deter destabilizing Iranian behavior.
claimJoint Commission meetings serve as important opportunities for the United States to pass messages to Iran on sensitive issues, given the restricted direct communications between the two nations.
claimThe Oman channel, which was used to facilitate contact between U.S. and Iranian officials during the Obama administration, remains a reliable option for communication despite being strained by its association with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
perspectiveThe United States should utilize its alliance with Syrian Kurds to prevent Iranian weapons shipments in northern Syria.
perspectiveAli Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, warned on June 15, 2016, that if the United States tears up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran will torch the agreement.
claimThe success of U.S. policy options toward Iran depends on smart diplomatic leadership, vigilant intelligence gathering and analysis, and a credible deterrence posture backed by military capacity.
claimThe United States faces a balancing act in its relationship with Saudi Arabia because it shares concerns about Iran but often disagrees with Saudi tactics, strategy, and threat perceptions.
claimAyatollah Khamenei instructed Iranian poets to uncover what he characterized as United States treason in a meeting held on June 21, 2016.
perspectiveU.S. policy efficacy is enhanced by providing Iran a path to develop a peaceful nuclear program while ensuring the United States retains sufficient warning time and evidence to respond to any Iranian attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.
procedureThe United States should ensure the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is prepared to expeditiously investigate any credible and specific information regarding Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including conducting inspections at any necessary sites, such as military sites.
claimThe United States can reinforce its case against Iran by focusing on Iranian testing of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and arms sales that violate UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
claimKarim Sadjadpour analyzed the potential for the United States to inadvertently enter into a war with Iran in an article published in The Atlantic on February 9, 2017.
claimIran has become increasingly adept at conducting cyber espionage and disruptive attacks against domestic and foreign critics as a result of being a target of destructive cyber attacks by the United States and its allies.
claimSanctions circumvention by Iran is a significant risk without the support of U.S. allies, as partners may refuse to comply with or enforce sanctions if they perceive the United States is acting based on politics or ideology rather than evidence of an Iranian nuclear breach.
claimThe Trump administration has exacerbated tensions with Iran, contrasting with the unsuccessful attempts by previous Iranian and American presidents, such as Hassan Rouhani and Barack Obama, to change the dynamics of the U.S.-Iran relationship.
procedureThe United States should closely monitor Iran’s nuclear program in collaboration with friendly partners to detect any indication of activity to acquire nuclear weapons or otherwise violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
perspectiveThe United States should support targeted maritime interdiction operations to intercept Iranian arms shipments to groups such as the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
perspectiveRussia would not support Iran if Iran initiated unprovoked military action against the United States or Israel.
claimThe 'snapback' mechanism, which involves the threat to reapply lifted sanctions, serves as the United States' essential leverage for encouraging Iran's continued compliance with the JCPOA.
procedureThe United States should work with international counterparts to pre-plan for a coordinated, proportional response to an evident Iranian breach of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
perspectiveThe author recommends reinstating the U-turn license to allow foreign businesses to use U.S. banks to conduct dollar-denominated transactions relating to Iranian entities as an incentive for Iran to make further nuclear commitments or other concessions.
claimThe application of a strategy to normalize Iran's nuclear program faces domestic opposition within the Iranian regime, resistance from U.S. domestic political actors, skepticism from U.S. regional allies in the Middle East, and opposition from Russia, which views such rapprochement as a threat to its influence and nuclear market share in Iran.
claimTepid compliance with U.S. sanctions, particularly from Iran’s core energy customers, enables circumvention and undermines U.S. leverage and credibility.
claimA proposed policy option for the United States is to negotiate a follow-on agreement to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) before the expiry of the JCPOA's uranium enrichment clauses, committing Iran not to scale up its infrastructure for developing nuclear weapons capabilities.
claimIncreased bilateral ties between the United States and Iran have historically represented a double-edged sword for Iran.
claimThe Swiss government has served as the U.S. protecting power in Iran since 1980 and could act as an interlocutor for U.S.-Iran communications beyond traditional consular duties.
perspectiveThe United States should undermine Iranian asymmetric activities globally by publicizing them to embarrass and isolate Iran.
claimContainment efforts by the United States and its partners cannot prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, but these efforts can slow the program and increase its costs.
claimDiplomatic engagement provides the United States with intelligence and insight into Iran's calculations, decision-making, and behaviors.
claimFor the issue of American citizens detained in Iran, the United States must maintain direct communication using established mechanisms.
claimThe United States holds Iran responsible for Houthi missile attacks on ships in the Bab al-Mandeb strait because the capability for such attacks is not indigenous to the Houthis.
accountThe administration of U.S. President Barack Obama attempted to improve relations with Iran between 2009 and 2016, including through numerous letters written by Obama to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, yet Iran and its regional policies remained hostile toward the United States and U.S. interests.
perspectiveRussia believes that a U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) due to Iranian actions unrelated to the nuclear program would be unjustified.
claimThe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) permits Iran to maintain a limited nuclear program, which the United States supports as a means to gain insight and influence over Iran's nuclear activities.
perspectiveThe U.S. administration should consider enlisting a prominent international statesperson, such as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to act as a neutral interlocutor in U.S.-Iran relations.
claimIranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated on April 27, 2016, that the United States had lifted sanctions against Iran only on paper.
claimThe United States and Iran have a bilateral maritime communication hotline, but it is rarely used by Iranian forces, particularly those operating in close proximity to U.S. and partner naval assets.
perspectiveThe United States should maintain cordial and private contact with Iranian officials on the margins of multilateral forums to address pressing issues.
procedureThe United States should utilize national authorities to sanction Iranian human rights abusers and companies that provide technology designed to support human rights abuses in Iran.
claimEnabling partnerships between U.S. companies and independent Iranian firms could create learning opportunities that make Iranian firms more skilled, efficient, and profitable, which would over time undercut the IRGC’s economic position within Iran.
claimThe United States has limited military leverage to prevent the buildup of Iranian influence in Syria without risking a significant and unwise escalation.
perspectiveThe United States should pursue four non-mutually exclusive options to constrain Iran's long-term nuclear capabilities, all of which rely on assertive diplomacy supported by carrots and sticks.
claimThe United States has utilized educational and cultural exchanges with Iran to support initiatives including internet freedom, culture, health, education, science, the environment, public diplomacy, and broadcasting.
claimThe United States will gain credibility and authority among its allies if it demonstrates a willingness to accept positive outcomes in its discourse with Iran.
claimIt is a fundamental U.S. interest to deny Iran the discretion to acquire nuclear weapons, both for nonproliferation purposes and for managing regional security and relations with Arab states and Israel.
perspectiveThe United States should make public details of illicit Iranian activity and share information about prior U.S. efforts to address this activity with security allies when sanctions are necessary.
claimThe United States could strengthen its diplomatic position regarding Iran by highlighting Iranian failures to ratify and properly implement the IAEA Additional Protocol and to secure a robust Broader Conclusion from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirming that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.
claimThe United States and Iran could find common ground in Iraq regarding political arrangements that maintain a strong central government while preventing Sunni alienation that could lead to renewed armed conflict.
claimA challenge to the U.S. strategy of building a case against Iran's nuclear program is that Iran is unlikely to blatantly violate the JCPOA in a manner that would justify the snapback of all nuclear sanctions.
perspectiveMaintaining a U.S. voice on human rights issues, particularly in multilateral forums, is a crucial component of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy regarding Iran.
perspectiveUnilateral U.S. pressure is likely to fail if Iran perceives escape routes in Europe, Russia, and Asia.
claimIn response to greater United States efforts to counter Iran in the region and expose its malign behavior, senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and hardline clerics may publicly threaten to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or reduce cooperation with the IAEA.
perspectiveThe United States should sharpen its sanctions to respond if Iran violates the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and to target Iran’s destabilizing regional activities, but this requires bringing along partners that have economic leverage over Iran.
accountKarim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.
perspectiveExpanding people-to-people exchanges between the United States and Iran will empower Iranian constituencies that favor connectivity with the West and help mitigate mutual enmity fueled by restrictive travel prohibitions.
perspectiveU.S. officials should aggressively identify, sanction, and counter Iranian missile procurement activities while coordinating with international counterparts to urge them to match U.S. sanctions designations.
claimIran's regional strategy centers on countering the United States and Israel, but it has increasingly focused on competition with Saudi Arabia, which Iran blames for the rise of Sunni radical groups like the Islamic State.
claimThe United States' posture toward Iran requires making it clear that any Iranian decision to pursue nuclear weapons acquisition would be detected early and resisted powerfully.
claimMost major countries, excluding the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, view Iran as a stable regional power and a tactical ally against radical Sunni jihadists like the Islamic State.
perspectiveThe United States should coordinate with the European Union and E3 partners, as well as Russia and China, to build consensus and maintain tools for addressing nuclear and related challenges involving Iran.
perspectiveU.S. administration officials should work to shrink the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the Iranian economy by aggressively sanctioning IRGC front companies, banks, properties, and administrative leadership ranks to create financial constraints and signal macroeconomic incentives for a private sector.
perspectiveThe U.S. administration's strategy should focus on constraining Iran's nuclear activity after key JCPOA provisions expire, as agreed restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will slowly lift over time.
claimEnding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) without clear evidence of significant Iranian violations would weaken the United States' ability to contest Iran's destabilizing regional actions because the U.S. would be blamed for the deal's failure, hindering multilateral cooperation.
claimFor a coercion-based strategy against Iran to succeed, the United States would need the firm backing of the P5+1 and a strong consensus to penalize Iranian noncooperation, paired with positive incentives such as trade, investment, nonlethal equipment transfers, and peaceful nuclear cooperation.
claimUnited States sanctions officials should impose sanctions in response to Iranian provocations immediately rather than waiting for JCPOA reporting or certification deadlines to avoid the perception that sanctions are intended to undermine the nuclear deal.
claimU.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia is complicated by the fact that pulling back can provoke Saudi Arabia to act more aggressively, while reassuring Saudi Arabia can make the United States appear complicit in Saudi actions, thereby increasing tensions with Iran.
perspectiveThe United States should coordinate with international partners to ensure that any potential snapback of sanctions against Iran is multilateral, as a unilateral U.S. response would likely fail to generate sufficient economic leverage and would signal a fractured international coalition.
claimConstructive engagement allows the United States to communicate positions to the Iranian government, demonstrate that the United States is not the enemy of the Iranian people, and build the multilateral support necessary to address nuclear and regional challenges.
perspectiveThe United States can leverage incidents of Iranian malfeasance to signal deterrence and reassurance more effectively than in the past by moving beyond low-profile USCENTCOM press releases to high-profile news conferences where senior officials stand in front of intercepted Iranian weapons.
claimThe United States and China jointly chair a working group focused on modernizing the Arak heavy water reactor in Iran to prevent it from producing weapons-grade plutonium.
claimThe United States aims to make the Iranian economy less susceptible to malign actors such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
claimImplementing a regional or subregional nuclear regime could help defuse concerns about Iran's nuclear activity while serving broader US regional and global nonproliferation interests.
procedureThe United States should conduct contingency planning and joint exercises with regional allies to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, particularly as enrichment restrictions expire and breakout times narrow.
claimThe U.S. administration’s September 24 travel proclamation suspends and limits entry by Iranians to the United States, but stipulates exceptions for valid student and exchange visitor visas, provided they undergo enhanced screening and vetting.
claimIran's reactions to increased United States efforts to counter and expose Iranian power and influence in the Middle East will likely vary based on the geopolitical importance of the specific area to Iran.
claimIn the face of serious pushback and a willingness to accommodate its interests, the Iranian government may be willing to tone down some of its ambitions and accept political settlements that the United States can accept.
perspectiveRussia opposes any U.S. military intervention in Iran, although Russia is unlikely to respond to such an intervention with force.
claimIranian foreign policy actions, ranging from activities in Syria to Venezuela, are framed by the Iranian government as efforts to resist the United States and Israel, while domestic unrest is frequently attributed to American and Zionist plots.
referencePresident Donald Trump delivered remarks regarding the United States' strategy on Iran on October 13, 2017.
claimThe United States and Iran have a history of working together to bring the post-Taliban government to power in Afghanistan and share an interest in stopping the opium trade and stabilizing the country.
claimExcessive U.S. hostility toward the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is likely to discourage other participants in the deal and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from assertively monitoring Iran's nuclear program due to fears of triggering conflict within the IAEA Board of Governors or with Iran.
claimIran is likely to acquiesce to a long-term American military presence in Iraq if Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Iraqi leadership privately press the case in Tehran, provided the force levels are low enough that Iran does not perceive them as a threat.
claimThe enmity toward the United States held by Iranian hardliners is driven by both the ideology of the 1979 revolution and the need for self-preservation, as the regime seeks external antagonism for internal political expediency.
perspectiveThe U.S. administration should maintain the policy allowing U.S. diplomats to meet with their Iranian counterparts at international meetings.
perspectiveThe United States should aggressively identify and sanction individuals and entities that Iran uses to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to prevent banks and companies from inadvertently facilitating Assad's aggression.
perspectiveThe United States serves its short- to medium-term strategic interests by maintaining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) because scrapping the deal would remove existing constraints on Iran's nuclear program and weaken the U.S. position for future negotiations.
claimSecurity vacuums in eastern Syria will persist for years, providing Iran with opportunities to increase its influence and move materiel and personnel despite U.S. efforts to limit such movement.
perspectiveRussia supports U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the future.
quoteSupreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated in July 2014: "reconciliation between Iran and America is possible, but it is not possible between the Islamic Republic and America."
perspectiveThe United States should oppose Iranian conventional military buildups in Syria by interdicting weapons shipments, exposing Iranian behavior, assisting Israel in countering Iranian actions, and pressing Russia to diplomatically prevent such a buildup.
accountThe United States maintains forces at al-Tanf in Syria, which has successfully cut off Iranian use of the southern and most direct route from Baghdad to Damascus.
claimPublicizing details of illicit Iranian activity and sharing information with allies will bolster the credibility of U.S. foreign policy and demonstrate that the United States is pursuing its concerns in a manner consistent with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Policy Steps to Prevent a Nuclear Iran | The Washington Institute washingtoninstitute.org 41 facts
claimBarring significant political change, Iran is unlikely to fundamentally alter its approach to the United States, the Middle East, or its nuclear pursuits.
claimThe United States was prepared to rejoin the JCPOA as a first step before addressing its flaws, while Iran demanded upfront concessions to address the agreement's weaknesses.
claimIsrael would require specific military articles and U.S. assistance to defend against an Iranian response to conduct a successful strike on Iran.
measurementIranian oil exports increased to nearly 2 million barrels per day in 2023, the highest level since the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), driven by increased demand from China and lax enforcement of American sanctions.
claimDeepening military cooperation between Iran and Russia or China could increase the stakes and risks associated with any potential Israeli or U.S. military action against Iran.
claimA divergence grew between the United States and the E3 grouping (the United Kingdom, France, and Germany) regarding nuclear negotiations with Iran.
procedureThe United States' containment strategy against Iran utilizes economic sanctions, export controls, and military threats to counter Iranian regional activities and stymie Iranian nuclear progress.
claimThere is no consensus among the United States, Israel, and other nations regarding what specific actions to take against Iran or what the objectives of such actions should be.
claimU.S. policy toward Iran since October 7, 2023, has been reactive, focusing on limiting Iranian confrontation with Israel.
claimNeither the United States nor Israel is certain how to accomplish regime change in Iran, which is a more difficult objective than less ambitious goals like disabling Iranian nuclear facilities.
claimAs Donald Trump begins his second term as president, he faces a situation where Iran is vulnerable but closer to nuclear weapons, and Israel is closer to striking Iran, which would require U.S. military support.
claimThe goal of the United States' containment policy toward Iran is to prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout long enough to outlast the current Iranian leadership.
claimIran uses deterrence to prevent direct strikes against its territory, threatening that such attacks would trigger Hezbollah missile barrages against Israel or strikes against U.S. interests in the Gulf.
claimThere is a belief in the United States, Israel, and other nations that Iran's vulnerability and advanced nuclear efforts create a need and opportunity to curtail threats posed by the Iranian regime.
claimIn the event of an Israeli strike on Iran, the United States will need to assess the damage to Iran's nuclear program, likely without the presence of UN inspectors who may have been expelled or withdrawn.
claimThe United States' containment policy has arguably succeeded in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to date, but this success is not guaranteed to be replicable in the future due to the advanced state of Iran's nuclear enterprise.
claimThe E3 grouping became increasingly impatient with the United States' lack of pressure on Iran and its preference for opaque bilateral understandings, while simultaneously becoming more alarmed by Iran's nuclear advances and defiance of the IAEA.
claimThe divergence between the United States and the E3 was evident at IAEA Board of Governors meetings, where the E3 pushed for harsher censure of Iran than the United States supported, with the U.S. reportedly lobbying against an E3-sponsored measure.
claimU.S. sanctions make the $200–250 billion investment required by Iran for its growth target likely impossible to achieve.
claimOffering Iran additional concessions or payments would likely guarantee withdrawal from the JCPOA by a future U.S. administration, particularly a Republican one.
perspectiveThe author argues that an Israeli military strike on Iran would likely require U.S. support, including military supplies and defense against potential Iranian retaliation.
claimThe Iranian regime concluded that it required firmer guarantees against future U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, more comprehensive sanctions relief, and compensation for the 2018–2021 period when sanctions relief was not provided.
claimThe United States has pursued a policy of containment toward Iran, as an alternative to diplomacy and military strikes, on and off for nearly three decades.
claimThe United States' containment policy has not proven successful in addressing Iran's regional activities.
claimUnder the 'de-escalation for de-escalation' policy, the United States refrained from challenging Iran or tightening sanctions, while Iran made minor nuclear gestures such as down-blending a portion of its 60 percent–enriched uranium stockpile.
claimThe April 13, 2024, Iranian attack on Israel demonstrated a significant gap between the conventional military capabilities of Iran and those of the United States, Israel, and their regional partners.
accountThe Iranian regime rejected U.S. offers to rejoin the JCPOA, arguing the 2015 accord was insufficient and demanding restitution for the U.S. withdrawal.
claimThe Trump administration must plan for the possibility of preemptive Israeli military strikes against Iran, including potential U.S. support for Israel and the protection of American and partner interests.
claimThe Biden administration could not credibly provide the additional concessions Iran sought during nuclear negotiations because it could not guarantee that future U.S. administrations would respect a renewed deal.
claimIran's nuclear program was more advanced in 2021 than before the 2015 JCPOA, which the regime likely viewed as leverage to demand concessions from the United States.
claimUnited States military forces face risks in Iraq and the Gulf if the United States conducts strikes against Iran or if Iran retaliates, requiring the United States to commit substantial forces to prepare for such contingencies.
claimThe United States government must prepare for the potential necessity of United States or Israeli military action against Iran.
claimThe U.S. Department of Defense strengthened military relations with regional partners, but the U.S. government took little action to directly challenge Iran.
claimThe author argues that the United States can simultaneously pursue diplomacy and pressure against Iran, citing the historical precedent of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union, which involved both diplomacy and proxy conflict while maintaining support for subject peoples and the goal of regime change.
claimThe United States sought for Iran to reverse nuclear advancements made in violation of the JCPOA and to commit to follow-on negotiations.
claimMilitary strikes by Israel against Iran's nuclear program are expected to draw in United States forces, with the primary uncertainty being the extent of that involvement.
claimIt is unclear if U.S. and Israeli policymakers know how to effectuate regime change in Iran without resorting to an Iraq- or Afghanistan-style military occupation, an option that few in the United States are prepared to contemplate.
perspectiveThe Washington Institute suggests that the United States should establish a firm deadline for negotiations within the first nine months of 2025 to enhance American leverage, provided Iran views the threat of a U.S. military alternative as credible.
claimThe de-escalation policy between the United States and Iran was rendered moot by the October 7, 2023, massacre and the ensuing regional conflict.
claimIf Israeli strikes fail to reliably eliminate Iran's nuclear breakout capability, the United States will need to develop a new strategy focused on either diplomacy or follow-up strikes to address residual nuclear capabilities.
perspectiveThe author argues that because Israel has lower military capabilities than the United States and because United States interests are likely to be targeted by Iran regardless of who conducts strikes, the United States should conduct the strikes to ensure effectiveness.
United States and Iran on the Brink: What's at Stake? - CSIS csis.org 38 facts
claimMs. Yacoubian observes that a rift between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is occurring simultaneously with rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
claimPresident Donald Trump faces pressure from political figures and Israeli officials who argue that military action against Iran is necessary to demonstrate that the United States is in charge.
claimDr. Vali Nasr asserts that the Iranian government distrusts President Donald Trump specifically, beyond their general distrust of the United States, because he withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) after Iran had implemented its requirements.
perspectiveMr. Farsakh predicts that any potential deal between the U.S. and Iran is more likely to be a partial agreement that delays a comprehensive resolution rather than a full, comprehensive agreement.
claimIran is hesitant to enter a new nuclear deal with the United States because Iranian leadership doubts the United States would honor the agreement, fears the United States might attack during the process, and does not want to grant President Donald Trump a political victory that does not resolve Iran's core concerns.
accountThe United States previously engaged in a conflict with Iran for 45 minutes before a ceasefire was established, which involved Iranian attacks on empty buildings at Al Udeid Base.
claimVali Nasr claims that Iran perceives threatening Gulf economies as a more effective deterrent against US military action than threatening Israel, because Gulf allies have direct access to President Donald Trump and can urge him to avoid war.
perspectiveDr. Nasr believes Israel's strategic calculus regarding Iran differs from that of the United States, making the Israeli role in the conflict uncertain and worthy of observation.
claimDr. Vali Nasr claims that Iran has not been enriching uranium or acting in a way that necessitates the current urgency or escalation by the United States.
claimThe Iranian leadership perceives that the United States and Israel currently believe they can escalate military pressure on Iran, strike at will, and subsequently force Iran to negotiate a surrender deal involving the abandonment of proxies, missiles, and the nuclear program in exchange for potential sanctions relief.
claimThe Iranian leadership believes that the United States, rather than Iran, requested the ceasefire during the previous conflict.
claimIran is currently facing two primary pressures: the threat of direct military attack from the United States or Israel, and domestic protests caused by American economic sanctions.
perspectiveThe Israeli security establishment advocates for an aggressive posture toward Iran and believes any US-led negotiation with Iran must address the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional malign activities to be considered valid.
claimRegional actors, including key Gulf states, have encouraged the Trump administration to pursue a negotiated solution regarding rising tensions between the United States and Iran.
claimIran seeks a negotiated agreement with the United States that includes specific guarantees of implementation and assurances against war, rather than a broad framework that lacks detailed commitments.
claimThe United States maintains concerns regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile capabilities, and support for regional proxies.
claimThere are reports that Iran is attempting to entice the United States with potential investment opportunities that would follow a negotiated outcome.
claimGulf littoral states have actively sought to mediate tensions between the United States and Iran, attempting to find off-ramps and a negotiated resolution to avoid conflict in their neighborhood.
claimThe United States and Israel are pressuring Iran toward negotiations by 'rattling the saber' and utilizing threats.
claimDr. Vali Nasr asserts that neither the United States nor Iran desires a messy war, despite both nations preparing for potential conflict.
claimGulf states are concerned that U.S. military action against Iran could result in retaliation that impacts the Gulf states themselves.
claimIranian strategists calculated that a massive retaliation against the United States and Israel may be more advantageous than limited responses, due to concerns about the sustainability of a prolonged conflict involving missile and interceptor depletion.
claimThe United States is pursuing a 'JCPOA-plus' agreement with Iran, which aims to address the original JCPOA terms while also including negotiations over Iranian missiles and proxy groups.
claimSecretary of Treasury Bessent stated that the U.S. strategy of forcing the Iranian public into poverty and desperation was successful in bringing protesters to the streets.
claimAmbassador Ratney posits that Iran may perceive a 'use or lose' scenario where they feel compelled to launch military assets quickly against the United States or Israel, fearing that their military capabilities would otherwise be destroyed in a preemptive strike.
perspectiveAmbassador Ziadeh questions the clarity of United States objectives regarding Iran, noting that a military strategy cannot simply be a 'replay of last time' because many Iranian nuclear facilities have already been destroyed to an extent.
claimAmbassador Ratney assesses the probability of military conflict between the United States and Iran versus a diplomatic resolution as 50/50.
claimAmbassador Ziadeh claims that if tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalate, Iran will be unable to export oil, resulting in a loss of market share.
perspectiveMr. Farsakh expresses skepticism that U.S. or Israeli military strikes against Iran have concluded, citing recent military buildups and events in Venezuela.
perspectiveDr. Nasr assesses that the recent negotiations between the United States and Iran were successful only in the sense that they did not collapse and the parties agreed to meet again.
perspectiveAmb. Ratney suggests that a potential resolution to US-Iran tensions under President Trump would likely take the form of a framework, an announcement, or an open-ended process rather than a formal agreement.
accountA second round of negotiations between the United States and Iran occurred in Geneva.
claimDr. Nasr asserts that the current U.S. President is managing multiple simultaneous international and domestic crises, which complicates the U.S.-Iran relationship by preventing it from being handled in isolation.
claimThe Iranian leadership believes that symbolic reactions to United States or Israeli attacks are counterproductive because such responses perpetuate the cycle of conflict and lead to further strikes against Iran.
perspectiveThe Iranian leadership perceives the domestic protests as being connected to a broader American strategy against Iran.
claimDr. Nasr suggests that Iran might attempt to drag the United States into a protracted conflict by attacking tankers, oil facilities, or American ships, thereby forcing President Trump to decide whether to escalate the situation.
claimDr. Nasr argues that the current US diplomatic process with Iran is ineffective because the US interlocutors are not diplomats and are attempting to manage multiple, disparate international crises—including Iran, Russia-Ukraine, and Gaza—in rapid succession.
claimSaudi Arabia maintains a positive relationship with the Trump administration while simultaneously communicating that US pressure on Iran may not serve regional stability interests.
Iran's Strategies in Response To Changes in US-China Relations mepc.org 29 facts
perspectiveIran views China as the primary challenger to United States hegemony and a central actor in establishing a new global order.
claimIranian officials perceive the war in Ukraine and the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel as significant setbacks for the United States.
claimChina brokered a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, fulfilling a mediation role that the United States and Europe failed to play in recent years.
perspectiveIran perceives Beijing's increasing strategic influence and its pushback against US involvement in the region as an opportunity to align with an emerging Chinese sphere of influence.
perspectiveIran's strategic response to the changing relationship between Beijing and Washington is based on the anticipation of the decline of United States hegemony and is aimed at securing a powerful position in the new world order.
claimIran's foreign policy strategy in response to changing US-China relations involves deepening ties with China, revising regional policies to align with China's influence in the Gulf, and projecting power by aiding Russia in Ukraine.
claimThe Iranian government presented the “Hormuz Peace Endeavor” (HOPE) during the GCC’s internal crisis with Qatar and the initial stage of the US-China trade war, motivated by a long-held aspiration to undermine United States hegemony.
perspectiveIran views normalization with Saudi Arabia as a way to strengthen anti-US collaboration in the region and to secure a place in a network of partnerships based on equality and independence.
claimIran has deepened its ties with China beyond business and trade collaboration as a strategic response to shifting dynamics in the United States-China relationship.
claimIranian officials perceive the war in Ukraine and the October 7 attacks on Israel as powerful blows to the United States.
perspectiveIran seeks to establish a regional security structure that is defined by the removal of US influence and presence.
claimIran's perception of declining American global power in the Gulf has driven Iran to restore diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia.
accountIran and China initiated a nuclear-cooperation agreement in the early 1990s, which was terminated due to US pressure.
perspectiveIranian senior leaders believe that expanding China-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cooperation provides an opportunity for Iran to enter China’s realm of influence, which will end the United States-led global system.
perspectiveIran believes that increased collaboration between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and China will be to the detriment of the United States.
claimSenior Iranian politicians frequently express the expectation that a new international order will replace the current US-led unipolar system.
referenceThe article 'Iran's Strategies in Response To Changes in US-China Relations' is part of a special issue examining the responses of Gulf countries to rising Sino-American competition, edited by Andrea Ghiselli, Anoushiravan Ehteshami, and Enrico Fardella.
claimThe Saudi government welcomed the Chinese-backed rapprochement with Iran due to disappointment with the United States' inability to protect Saudi security.
perspectiveThe Iranian regime, under the influence of the supreme leader, views China as the primary challenger to US hegemony and seeks to strengthen ties with Beijing to maximize Iran's global power.
perspectiveBy welcoming Beijing's intervention, Iran sought to demonstrate that the United States and its Western allies can no longer shape regional dynamics.
perspectiveIran's strategic calculus regarding the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is influenced by the perception of United States decline and the rise of China.
claimThe United States government under the Biden administration eased pressure on Iran by restoring some sanctions waivers.
claimIran's relations with China are driven by the need to build and strengthen links with a strong non-Western economic power, particularly during periods of harsh US-led economic sanctions.
claimThe strong American military presence in the Gulf, resulting from long-standing warm relations between the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, has historically excluded Iran from a position of influence in the region.
accountFollowing the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018 and the subsequent imposition of a maximum pressure campaign by President Donald Trump, European firms ceased business with Iran, and the Chinese banking system limited the scope of its operations with Iran.
perspectiveIran's primary response to the changing US-China relationship is a quest for power projection, which has led Iranian leaders to extend their 'resistance strategy' beyond their traditional regional sphere of influence.
perspectiveIran perceives a decline in United States power and is actively seeking opportunities to emerge as a significant global player.
claimIran's foreign policy is driven by a belief in the decline of United States power, particularly within the Gulf region.
claimIran became skeptical of the European Union's potential to resolve regional issues, particularly following the United States' withdrawal from the nuclear deal under Donald Trump.
How to Handle Iran's Nuclear Ambitions - New Lines Institute newlinesinstitute.org 25 facts
claimAccording to U.S. intelligence assessments, Iran has refrained from weaponizing its nuclear technology despite being considered a 'threshold state' and the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains in place.
claimThe United States and Israel play key roles in shaping the trajectory of the Iranian nuclear program and creating the current geopolitical situation.
claimThe United States joined Israel in targeting Iran's underground nuclear facilities with bombing raids, though there is little evidence these raids destroyed the facilities.
claimIran accused Israel of deliberately sabotaging diplomacy and declared that further negotiations with the United States would remain frozen until Israeli operations ceased.
accountFollowing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran resumed nuclear enrichment and development activities.
claimThe United States' recent attempts to reach a negotiated solution with Iran regarding its nuclear enrichment program failed because the U.S. combined diplomatic outreach with threats, military force, and coercion.
procedureThe author recommends that the U.S. should center its Iran policy around strategic reciprocity, where Iran halts weaponization and support for proxy militias in exchange for U.S. guarantees of non-intervention and support for phased reintegration into the international community.
accountThe 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran led to the toppling of the Shah and a subsequent hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy, which resulted in the severance of diplomatic ties between the two nations.
claimIsrael launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which the New Lines Institute article characterizes as contrary to U.S. strategic interests and a move that played spoiler to U.S.-Iran negotiations.
quoteVice President JD Vance stated: "The United States is not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program."
perspectiveFor the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran's nuclear program is primarily valued for its deterrent capability against the United States and its allies, rather than for offensive military utility.
perspectiveThe United States policy toward Iran should not be subcontracted to an ally with a maximalist and expansionist endgame, and the U.S. should use its military, diplomatic, and financial leverage to press Israel into restraint.
claimThe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework remains vulnerable to collapse because the conflict between the United States and Iran is rooted in national identity rather than exclusively in behavior.
claimThe United States portrays Iran as uniquely irrational, dangerous, and resistant to the West compared to conventional U.S. adversaries.
accountNegotiations between the United States and Iran suffered a sharp rupture when Israel launched a series of direct strikes against Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure two days before talks were scheduled to resume in Rome.
claimU.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran empower the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), despite the stated goal of weakening Iran's capabilities.
perspectiveTo secure a meaningful, lasting agreement with Iran, the United States must abandon past coercive strategies in favor of an approach that recognizes the complexity of Iran’s strategic calculus and redefines the parameters of engagement.
claimIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has utilized escalation with Iran to deflect attention from Israeli military actions in Gaza, secure U.S. support, and gain domestic political capital.
accountNegotiations between the United States and Iran fractured when the U.S. demanded that Iran not only cease enrichment beyond civilian thresholds but also give up the entirety of its nuclear program, a demand Iran refused citing its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
claimThe United States and Israel operate from a position of sustained dominance tempered by a long history of adversarial and existential threats, while Iran's posture is shaped by historical trauma, regime survival, and deterrence logic.
claimThe Iranian government views diplomatic engagement with the West as transactional, fragile, and unreliable, a belief reinforced by the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, international isolation, assassinations, cyberattacks, and direct military strikes.
perspectiveTo prevent nuclear proliferation and stabilize the Middle East, the New Lines Institute recommends that the U.S. abandon coercion as the primary tool of statecraft and pivot to a framework of strategic reciprocity, offering security assurances and reintegration to Iran in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear program and regional activities.
accountThe 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, is cited as the origin of Iranian mistrust toward the United States.
claimDomestic political opposition in the United States makes diplomatic engagement with Iran difficult to sell.
perspectiveThe New Lines Institute argues that U.S. military force against Iran justified Iran's nuclear ambitions, empowered the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and increased the likelihood that Tehran will cross the nuclear threshold to weaponization.
What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal? | Council on Foreign Relations cfr.org 20 facts
claimThe United States ended waivers for Iranian oil imports one year after the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal to halt Iran's oil exports completely.
claimU.S. intelligence analysts concluded in 2007 that Iran halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003 but continued to acquire nuclear technology and expertise.
claimPresident Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, asserting that the agreement failed to curtail Iran's missile program and regional influence.
accountSeveral countries continued to import Iranian oil under waivers granted by the Trump administration following the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, during which time Iran continued to abide by its commitments.
accountIran announced it would no longer limit its uranium enrichment in January 2020 following the United States' targeted killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.
referenceThe P5+1 group, which negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, consisted of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Germany, with participation from the European Union.
claimIn October 2022, the United States imposed sanctions on eighteen major Iranian banks, which caused the Iranian rial to depreciate further against the U.S. dollar.
claimThe United States maintains sanctions on Iran related to its ballistic missile program, support for terrorist groups, and human rights abuses, with some of these sanctions dating back to the 1979 hostage crisis.
claimIran accused the United States of reneging on its commitments under the nuclear deal and criticized European nations for submitting to U.S. unilateralism.
claimIn retaliation for the U.S. departure from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and for deadly attacks on prominent Iranians in 2020, including one by the United States, Iran has resumed its nuclear activities.
measurementThe United States and various European nations unfroze approximately $100 billion in Iranian assets as part of the nuclear deal implementation.
claimIran has increasingly limited the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) ability to inspect its facilities since the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, though Iran pledged to increase cooperation with the agency in March 2023.
claimMultinational firms avoid transacting with Iranian entities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) due to the fear of U.S. sanctions, which has led to a boom in black markets and the enrichment of the IRGC at the expense of the broader Iranian economy.
claimDespite committing to lift sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the United States maintained restrictions on financial transactions, which deterred international trade with Iran.
claimWashington and Tehran remain in disagreement over several issues regarding rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, and U.S. officials have indicated that further Iranian nuclear advances could make returning to the original deal impossible.
claimIran began ignoring limitations on its nuclear program one year after the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018.
claimThe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is an arms control agreement signed in 2015 by Iran and several world powers, including the United States, which placed restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
perspectivePresident Joe Biden stated that the United States would return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action if Iran returned to compliance with the agreement.
claimThe P5+1, which negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, consisted of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Germany, with participation from the European Union.
claimThe restoration of U.S. sanctions and the end of sanctions waivers on oil exports in 2018 significantly reduced Iran's national revenue.
Iran War: A Defining Moment for the Middle East—Global Analysis ... ajc.org 17 facts
perspectivePolicymakers debate whether Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, despite a general consensus that Iran is a malign actor.
claimBrazil, Chile, and Colombia condemned the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, while Argentina and Paraguay have backed the strikes.
perspectiveSpanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticized the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, warning that it could escalate regional tensions and undermine international stability.
claimThe United Kingdom allowed U.S. forces to utilize British military bases and coordinated on defense matters, though the United Kingdom emphasized it was not involved in offensive strikes against Iran.
claimNorway, a non-EU European country, criticized the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran.
claimPresident Donald Trump justified U.S. military action against Iran as an act of national self-defense to "defend the American people."
claimThe combined U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran has achieved many of its initial military objectives.
claimSpain was the only major European Union government to clearly oppose the U.S.–Israeli military strikes against Iran.
accountIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel two days before the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran.
claimResidents in the Gulf region anticipated that if the United States or Israel struck Iran, the Iranian regime would retaliate against U.S. military sites, including Al Dhafra Air Base (located less than 20 miles from the center of Abu Dhabi) and bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
claimAlbanian Prime Minister Edi Rama expressed support for the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, specifically praising U.S. military support for Israel.
claimAcross the Indo-Pacific region, most governments have urged restraint and diplomacy regarding the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, with China standing out as the most vocal critic.
measurementAs of March 3, six U.S. service members have been killed in military actions related to Iran.
accountOperation Lion’s Roar was a combined offensive by Israel and the United States that followed failed diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear development.
claimU.S. Arab partners in the Middle East remain largely aligned with the United States regarding the campaign against Iran, although this alignment is maintained privately.
claimThe Czech Republic supported the U.S.–Israeli military operation against Iran, citing Iran’s nuclear program and its support for militant groups as threats to European security.
claimIndonesia offered to mediate the conflict between Iran and the U.S./Israel, though the offer is viewed as unrealistic due to Indonesia's lack of key relationships and direct stakes in the conflict.
Twenty questions (and expert answers) about the Iran war atlanticcouncil.org 16 facts
claimAn IRGC-run Iran could potentially pursue three pathways: (1) becoming a larger regional and domestic threat by consolidating power, (2) seeking to gain public support by negotiating a deal with the United States for sanctions relief, or (3) entering a period of internal confusion and power struggles where Western states must decide whether to intervene.
claimIranian leaders calculate that Iran is more willing to take casualties and absorb pain than the United States or Gulf countries, leading them to believe that if Iran retains the military capability to inflict pain and keep energy prices high, Iran is more likely to determine the end of a conflict than the United States.
claimThe United States is not currently mobilizing conventional ground forces for the war with Iran, either within the region or domestically.
accountDuring the twelve-day war in June 2025, Israeli and US strikes significantly set back the Iranian nuclear program, though some Iranian ballistic missile attacks successfully penetrated Israeli and US missile defenses.
measurementThe United States has successfully degraded Iranian military capabilities, with more than fifty Iranian naval vessels destroyed and resting on the sea floor.
claimIn the near term, Gulf countries will seek stronger US security support, including munitions and air defense support, to defend against Iranian attacks and will seek clearer long-term US security guarantees.
claimArab Gulf countries are on the front lines of the conflict involving Iran, while the United States and Israel lead operations against Iran.
claimThe current conflict between Iran and the US/Israel is distinct from the twelve-day war in 2025 or other previous conflicts where Iran rapidly de-escalated.
claimAny use of United States ground forces in Iran would likely be limited to special operations forces for specific missions.
claimUS President Donald Trump will likely be able to declare victory once the United States finishes targeting the remaining Iranian missile and drone manufacturing capabilities, a process expected to take a couple of more weeks.
claimThe United States has smashed Iran’s missile capabilities, supported the destruction of some additional nuclear facilities, and killed scores of Iran’s top leaders.
claimIran may only accept an off-ramp to a conflict if it ensures there is not another near-term war, which would likely entail compelling the United States to enforce a cease-fire that Israel adheres to.
claimThe United States' stated military goals in the conflict with Iran include degrading Iran's nuclear program, ballistic missiles, navy, drones, and control of its terror proxies.
perspectiveAllison Minor asserts that if Iran poses a long-term threat to Gulf national security and economic growth, and if Gulf countries assess that the United States is not doing enough to help them combat that threat, it will create a crippling strain on US-Gulf relations.
claimDaniel B. Shapiro, a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, asserts that if a gap opens between Israeli and United States goals regarding the war with Iran, Donald Trump will likely determine when the war ends and impose that endpoint on Israel, even if it falls short of regime change.
accountThe United States is conducting strikes on Iran-backed militias in Iraq in response to attacks on US bases and diplomatic facilities inside Iraq.
Five fundamental questions for US foreign policy as the Iran war ... mei.edu 9 facts
claimArab Gulf partners of the United States have adopted a passive defensive posture in response to Iranian attacks against civilian, energy, and military infrastructure.
claimInitial US intelligence community assessments indicate that the Iranian regime has regenerated and consolidated power despite suffering significant military blows and losses of top leadership.
claimThe United States and Israel have encouraged the Iranian people to stand up against the Iranian regime and take control of their own future.
claimThe United States' foreign policy regarding Iran has shifted from a strategy of 'maximum pressure' against the regime to one of 'maximum uncertainty.'
perspectiveApproaching the fourth week of the war, the United States and Israel are observing the limitations of using only air and naval power to remove the Iranian regime.
accountThe United States launched attacks on Iran in concert with Israel.
perspectiveThe author warns that Operation Epic Fury risks repeating the same strategic mistakes the United States made in Iraq and Afghanistan by lacking a clear, realistic political end state for Iran.
claimOperation Epic Fury is the name of the current military campaign being conducted by the United States against Iran.
perspectiveThe author argues that the current US approach of conducting military strikes without a clear strategy risks worsening the situation inside Iran and the broader Middle East region.
Iran's Geopolitical Footprint: Regional Power or Global Contender? moderndiplomacy.eu 9 facts
accountThe 1979 Iran hostage crisis and subsequent decades of sanctions and diplomatic isolation have defined the bilateral relationship between Iran and the United States.
claimIran's strategy of backing the Houthi rebels in Yemen counters Saudi power and challenges the U.S.-Saudi axis that has traditionally dominated the region.
claimThe relationship between Iran and the United States is characterized by mutual mistrust and animosity.
perspectiveIran positions itself as a defender of oppressed peoples in the Muslim world and as an adversary to the hegemony of the United States, Israel, and Western influence in the Middle East.
claimIran has deepened its relationships with China and Russia in recent years, specifically focusing on military cooperation and trade to counter United States influence and sanctions.
accountThe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented a period of thawing relations between Iran and the United States during the presidency of Barack Obama.
claimIran is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement and acts as a significant regional power that seeks to challenge the unipolarity of United States global dominance.
claimIran pursues a policy of 'self-reliance' and strategic autonomy, which involves diversifying international relationships and avoiding full dependence on any single power, including the United States, Russia, or China.
claimIran views the United States as a major antagonist primarily because the United States supports Iran's regional adversaries, specifically Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Iran at a Crossroads: Legitimacy, External Pressure and Regional ... ciris.info 9 facts
claimThe United States' posture toward Iran in early 2026 utilized coercion as a signaling mechanism to increase the perceived costs of Iranian defiance and generate domestic political support for potential escalation.
claimGulf actors' central diplomatic objective during the resumption of indirect U.S.–Iran talks in Oman was to prevent spillover onto bases, infrastructure, and shipping routes, while discouraging both U.S. escalation and Iranian retaliation, according to Farhat (2026), Lewis & Pamuk (2026), and Motamedi (2026b).
claimChinese imports of Iranian oil surged in March 2025 due to fears of impending United States sanctions, as reported by Reuters on April 11, 2025.
claimIran and the United States held talks in Oman in early February 2026, which Iranian officials characterized as 'a good start' with expectations for further discussions, as reported by Al Jazeera.
claimIran has demanded that Oman serve as the venue for talks with the United States amid rising regional tensions.
claimRussia has publicly urged United States–Iran talks and warned against the use of force, viewing uncontrolled escalation as a generator of regional chaos rather than a manageable pressure tactic.
claimSupreme Leader Ali Khamenei is attempting to avert a US attack on Iran.
claimRussia urged the United States and Iran to engage in talks and warned against the use of force regarding the Iran crisis on January 29, 2026.
claimThe United States is pushing to expand diplomatic talks with Iran beyond the nuclear issue.
We Bombed the Wrong Target Iran's Proxy Network Strategy irregularwarfare.org 8 facts
claimSpain, Chile, Russia, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt have voiced concern or condemnation regarding U.S. unilateral coercive action against Iran's proxy network.
claimCanada has called for restraint and diplomacy regarding the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran's proxies, rather than endorsing an open-ended campaign, according to reports from Al Jazeera and National Public Radio.
quoteIranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated in an interview: “We are certainly interested for de-escalation. If Americans want to talk to us, they know how they can contact me.”
claimKataib Hezbollah attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq would pressure the government of Baghdad to demand U.S. withdrawal, which would constitute a political victory for Iran.
accountBetween 2019 and 2025, Iranian proxies conducted sustained campaigns of harassment attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, resulting in American casualties.
accountAbbas Araghchi emphasized that the United States and Iran had been close to a deal and decried the strikes while talks were ongoing.
claimThe United States faces a 'simultaneity problem' where it must manage crises in Venezuela, Greenland, Ukraine, and Iran concurrently while maintaining deterrence against China in the Indo-Pacific.
perspectiveA Foreign Policy analysis posits that Iran views its proxy groups as a deterrent against U.S. and Israeli pressure, though these groups face internal pressures from war-exhausted populations and fears of being targeted.
Power Transition in the Middle East: The Intersection of US Global ... populismstudies.org 7 facts
perspectiveProfessor Ibrahim Ozturk argues that the 2026 US-Israeli strikes on Iran reflect a strategic intersection of energy security, regional military dynamics, and intensifying great-power rivalry between the United States and China.
referenceCarnegie noted that Gulf monarchies are focused on preserving their economic and security systems while caught between Iranian escalation and US recklessness.
claimThe United States aims to keep the conflict with Iran politically contained to prevent the Muslim world from falling under China’s influence and to minimize China’s growing influence in the Global South.
claimThe Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published an article titled 'The Gulf monarchies are caught between Iran’s desperation and the U.S.’s recklessness' on March 3, 2026.
claimThe 2026 US-Israeli military stand-off with Iran aims to weaken Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities to bolster Israel’s regional dominance.
claimThe United States' military actions against Iran are intended to retain strategic control over global energy flows amid rising competition with China.
measurementBrent crude oil prices reached a peak of $119.50 per barrel on March 9, 2026, following the February 28, 2026, US-Israel strikes on Iran.
The Expanding Iran War - ISPI ispionline.it 7 facts
claimThere are reports of United States support for Iranian-Kurdish separatists and an explicit US-Israeli aim to dismantle Iran’s security apparatus.
accountIran struck the British military base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, and the United States claimed responsibility for the sinking of an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
accountA massive US-Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran killed more than 1,000 Iranians and resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other senior figures in his inner circle on February 28.
claimHistorically neutral actors, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, are being drawn into the conflict between Iran and the US-Israeli coalition and may be forced to respond.
claimIranian officials have signaled that locations associated with US military presence or strategic interests in the region are potential targets for Iranian strikes.
perspectiveTurkey condemns the US-Israeli strikes on Iran while simultaneously criticizing Iran for widening the war by targeting Gulf states.
claimRory Miller suggests that Iranian attacks may contribute to rising energy prices and economic impacts that could force the United States to shorten its military campaign and restrain Israeli ambitions.
The Strategic Dilemmas : Iranian Politics, the U.S. strategy ... hornreview.org 6 facts
claimGulf governments view the United States military presence in the Gulf as the primary external deterrent against Iranian aggression.
claimThe Biden administration's regional strategy prioritizes containment, which includes protecting United States forces, deterring Iranian proxies, and preventing the expansion of the conflict into a full regional confrontation.
perspectiveThe United States strategic assessment holds that airstrikes alone rarely compel regime collapse, while a ground invasion of Iran would carry enormous political, military, and humanitarian costs.
claimThe United States has shifted its strategy regarding Iran from regime change toward a decapitation and fragmentation strategy, which involves targeting and eliminating key decision-makers to disrupt coordination and weaken the Iranian regime's control apparatus.
perspectiveGulf governments are actively shaping a multipolar strategy designed to protect their economies and avoid entanglement in a prolonged United States–Iran confrontation.
claimThe United States' regional challenge involves maintaining deterrence without becoming entangled in another protracted conflict, with a focus on securing maritime routes and preventing proxy escalation.
The Limits of Iran's Proxy Empire | The New Yorker newyorker.com 5 facts
accountDuring the 'Twelve-Day War' in June, Israel attacked Iran, and the United States subsequently joined the conflict by striking Iranian nuclear facilities.
claimAll of Iran's proxy groups share a deep ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.
claimThe Houthis' recent buildup of defenses is likely intended to prevent the U.S. and Israel from targeting their supreme leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, rather than to prepare for supporting Iran.
claimThe Houthis are concerned that even if they do not join the war, they could become targets of the U.S. and Israel, or face harsher sanctions if Iran is significantly weakened or the Iranian regime collapses.
perspectiveMansour stated that because Iran is now engaged in a direct fight against the United States and Israel, its allied proxy groups are becoming less necessary.
Opportunities for Collective Regional Security in the Middle East carnegieendowment.org 4 facts
perspectiveSaudi Arabia's Vision 2030 agenda focuses on modernization and safeguarding resources from regional tensions, while seeking to maintain calm with Iran, stabilize the Arab Mashreq, and pursue strategic dialogues with the United States regarding peaceful nuclear programs and regional normalization.
claimIran utilized its network of armed militias as a protective shield against American and Israeli adversaries and as strategic assets in regional negotiations and power dynamics.
claimIran's regional strategy is designed to deter the United States and Israel from threatening Iranian security, targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure, or undermining the military capabilities of Iranian allies.
accountIsrael refused to withdraw from the Syrian Golan Heights, engaged in military conflicts with Hezbollah, including the 2006 war, and conducted repeated strikes against Iranian allies, often in coordination with the United States.
Geopolitical analysis of the imposed war against Iran - Al Jazeera aljazeera.com 4 facts
perspectiveThe United States' narrative of a unilateral victory in the war against Iran serves domestic political needs for displaying power rather than reflecting operational realities on the ground.
claimThe war with Iran is causing rifts between the United States and its Western and regional allies due to divergent economic interests and differing security perspectives regarding policies towards Tehran.
accountIranian forces destroyed two major United States radars in the region during the conflict.
claimThe United States and Israel are described as the aggressors who have imposed a war against Iran, which has escalated beyond a local conflict to have global ramifications.
The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question, April 2026 ... securitycouncilreport.org 4 facts
accountIran retaliated against the joint Israeli-US strikes by attacking Israel, US bases, and allied assets in the Middle East, and by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz.
perspectiveChina and Russia abstained from voting on resolution 2817, criticizing the resolution as unbalanced because it failed to address the initial Israeli–US strikes on Iran.
accountDuring the conflict starting 28 February 2026, Israel and the US targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile facilities, and naval assets, and killed several top military and political officials, including Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani.
claimJoint Israeli–US strikes on Iran began on 28 February 2026, triggering a sharp escalation in hostilities in the Middle East.
Iran's Regional Proxies: Reshaping the Middle East and ... isdp.eu 4 facts
claimIran utilizes its entrenched relationships with proxy groups to target the United States indirectly, allowing Iran to maintain plausible deniability.
accountKataib Hezbollah in Iraq agreed to cease attacks against the United States, potentially following intervention by Iran, which suggests the initial attacks may have been conducted without explicit Iranian approval.
perspectiveIran and its proxy groups, including Hezbollah, Kataib Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hashd al-Shaabi, share a primary objective of expelling U.S. forces from the Middle East.
claimIran strategically develops anti-U.S. alliances by fostering relationships with non-state actors, including groups with differing ideologies such as Hamas.
Iran's Regional Armed Network - Council on Foreign Relations cfr.org 4 facts
perspectiveIran utilizes a proxy war strategy to avoid direct responsibility for actions it endorses, thereby shielding itself from direct retaliation by the United States, which has focused its responses on the proxies themselves.
quoteThe proxy war strategy has had the advantage of shielding Iran from direct retaliation by the United States, as the [Joe] Biden administration has focused its response on proxies.
perspectiveIran has generally avoided direct blame for violence committed by suspected proxy forces and is keen to avoid outright war with the United States, according to many experts.
measurementIn the months following the October 2023 Hamas assault on Israel, suspected proxy forces for Iran killed three U.S. troops in Jordan and injured dozens more on U.S. military bases across the Middle East, according to U.S. officials.
Iranian proxy network in Middle East is in disarray, experts ... jpost.com 3 facts
claimMenashri stated that Israel will follow Donald Trump's lead regarding Iran, noting that both the United States and Israel oppose a nuclear-armed Iran but are each hoping the other will take military action.
claimBaheli observed that Donald Trump appears to favor diplomacy over military action regarding Iran, but Israel's strategic moves remain closely tied to United States policy.
perspectiveNima Baheli, an Iranian political analyst, stated that Iran's recent military maneuvers and propaganda are primarily intended as external messaging to opponents like the United States and Israel to demonstrate that Iran is not an easy target.
What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets? - CSIS csis.org 3 facts
claimOPEC+ faces increased difficulty in market management due to growing fiscal pressure on key producers like Saudi Arabia and the complex supply-demand situation resulting from U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliation.
claimThe United States and Israel claim to have achieved air superiority over Iran, which allows for a shift to aircraft-delivered munitions for more effective targeting.
claimUnited States and Israeli forces are actively diminishing Iran’s missile and drone capabilities.
A “Good Deal” with Iran? Requirements for Preventing a Future ... washingtoninstitute.org 3 facts
claimA central policy question for the United States is whether renewed nuclear talks with Iran should be confined to nuclear activities or expanded to include Iran’s missile advancements, regional proxy sponsorship, and domestic repressive apparatus.
perspectiveThe Washington Institute recommends a comprehensive ban on Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) development, citing the threat to U.S. and European homeland security and the likelihood of Iran achieving this capability within a few years without constraints.
claimDespite U.S. and Israeli military strikes against its nuclear infrastructure, Iran has preserved nuclear know-how, developed advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and maintained future nuclear breakout options.
The impact of the Iran conflict on global energy markets atlanticcouncil.org 3 facts
measurementFollowing the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran, US fuel prices, European natural gas costs, and Asian tanker freight rates have risen sharply.
measurementFollowing the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran, US fuel prices, European natural gas costs, and Asian tanker freight rates have risen sharply.
claimUS and Israeli strikes on Iran and the subsequent response from Tehran have heightened regional tensions and disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Winners and Losers: Russia, China, and Europe Respond to the ... carnegieendowment.org 3 facts
claimThe global economy, the Gulf states, and civilians in the conflict zone are experiencing negative impacts from the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
claimThe United States and Israel are engaged in a war against Iran, which has been ongoing for nearly one month as of March 30, 2026.
claimEuropean nations, including France, Germany, and Britain, are under pressure to support the war aims of the United States in the conflict with Iran.
After Khamenei: Regional Reckoning and the Future of Iran's Proxy ... stimson.org 2 facts
claimEfforts to establish a sustainable detente between Iran and Gulf countries have been hindered by mutual mistrust regarding Iranian expansionist objectives and Gulf countries' relations with Israel and the United States, as well as Iran's continued support for Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis.
accountA pro-Iranian Iraqi militia claimed responsibility for drone attacks targeting U.S. troops at Baghdad airport and a U.S. base in Erbil.
Escalation in the Middle East | MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES msf-me.org 2 facts
claimThe recent escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran has not directly impacted Médecins Sans Frontières activities or staff in Yemen, and operations continue as planned.
accountIn late February, United States and Israeli forces carried out airstrikes against Iran, which were followed by retaliatory actions impacting multiple countries across the Middle East.
Quick View: The Iran conflict's impact on global energy markets janushenderson.com 2 facts
claimAn attack on the oil infrastructure of U.S. allies in the Gulf could lead to a reciprocal assault on Iranian energy assets, potentially tilting global oil markets toward undersupply.
claimThe joint U.S.-Israeli offensive has targeted Iranian leadership and defense capabilities, while Iran's response has targeted U.S. military assets and civilian targets.
The Iran War Is Upending Global Energy Markets by Carolyn Kissane project-syndicate.org 2 facts
quoteUS President Donald Trump suggested that military operations against Iran could last "four to five weeks."
measurementNearly 50 senior Iranian officials have been killed in the conflict with the US-Israeli coalition.
The Geopolitical Competition of the United States, China ... journalisslp.com 2 facts
referenceStephen McGlinchey documented the creation of the U.S.-Iran arms agreement of May 1972 in a 2013 article titled 'Richard Nixon's Road to Tehran'.
referenceS. Hamrah analyzed the long-term impact of mobilizing militant Islamists during the Soviet-Afghan War, specifically focusing on the strategies of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, in a 2023 publication.
The Middle East Conflict and the Future of the Region's Political Order internationalaffairs.org.au 2 facts
referenceThe 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 powers (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) required Iran to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent, reduce its enriched uranium stockpile to approximately 300 kilograms, and allow International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring of its nuclear facilities in exchange for the lifting of nuclear-related economic sanctions.
measurementAt least 1,255 people have been killed in Iran, with many reported as civilians, following coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel on 28 February 2026.
Iran War Unravels U.S. Strategy and Strengthens Russia–China Axis toda.org 2 facts
claimIran responds to United States military strikes by escalating through proxy networks and maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.
claimUnited States officials report that Russia is providing Iran with satellite imagery and intelligence regarding the locations of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East.
Iran and Middle East conflict impacts global economy - Deloitte deloitte.com 2 facts
claimA prolonged conflict in Iran may render the US economy vulnerable to asset-price shocks, similar to the 8.4% decline in net worth experienced by the top 20% of income earners by the third quarter of 2022 following the outbreak of war in Ukraine and subsequent monetary policy tightening.
claimA prolonged conflict in Iran could have implications for the US economy over time.
What the Iran War Means for China | Foreign Affairs foreignaffairs.com 2 facts
claimChinese strategists view the U.S.-led international system as fraying, noting that recent U.S. military actions in Venezuela and Iran were undertaken with little regard for economic consequences or international law.
claimChina is unlikely to escort shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, pressure Tehran, or attempt to replace the United States as the region's policeman, regardless of the duration of the war in Iran.
“Grave Peril” as Crisis Expands Across the Middle East betterworldcampaign.org 1 fact
accountThe United States and Israel began military operations against Iran on February 27, 2025, which have since spread across the region.
What Comes Next? Iran Through a Middle Powers Lens belfercenter.org 1 fact
claimThe recent U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran represents a rupture in the regional order that impacts middle powers like Vietnam.
The Arab Approach to Mediation—Reshaping Diplomacy in a ... washingtoninstitute.org 1 fact
accountOman facilitated early diplomatic discussions between the United States and Iran that contributed to the 2015 nuclear deal.
Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War and the Changing Face ... rand.org 1 fact
referenceMeredith Reid Sarkees and Frank Wayman documented a list of historical conflicts and their major participants in their 2010 book 'Resort to War: 1816–2007', including the Crimean War (1853–1856, France/Great Britain/Ottoman Empire/Russia), the Lopez War (1864–1870, Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay/Uruguay), the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878, Russia/Ottoman Empire), the Boer War (1899–1902, Great Britain/Boers), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905, Japan/Russia), the Russo-Polish War (1919–1921, Poland/Soviet Union), the Italo-Ethiopian War (1935–1936, Ethiopia/Italy), the Korean War (1950–1953, United States/North Korea/China/South Korea), the Vietnam War (1965–1975, United States/South Vietnam/North Vietnam), the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979–1987, Vietnam/China), the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989, Soviet Union/Afghanistan), and the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988, Iran/Iraq).
Gilbert Doctorow: Russia & China Reconsider U.S. Relations Over ... singjupost.com 1 fact
perspectiveGilbert Doctorow asserts that Iran is capable of looking after its own interests more effectively than external powers like Russia, China, or the United States.
The Persian Gulf TV War by Douglas Kellner (http://www.gseis.ucla ... pages.gseis.ucla.edu 1 fact
claimPersistent allegations exist that the Reagan election team promised Iran arms and spare parts in exchange for holding U.S. diplomats hostage during the 1980 election campaign to prevent an 'October Surprise' release of hostages that might have helped Jimmy Carter's reelection.
An Integrated U.S. Strategy to Address Iran's Nuclear and Regional ... carnegieendowment.org 1 fact
claimThe United States ended a thirty-five-year diplomatic vacuum with Iran with the primary objective of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Middle East conflict economic impacts chips | Sourceability sourceability.com 1 fact
accountU.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, which began in February 2026, have resulted in severe disruption to commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, including more than a dozen confirmed attacks on merchant vessels.
Climate Shocks Are Redefining Energy Security energypolicy.columbia.edu 1 fact
claimUS and Israeli forces have significantly degraded Iran’s military and nuclear capability.
Iran Conflict Brief: The High Cost of Attacking Energy Infrastructure energypolicy.columbia.edu 1 fact
perspectiveAnne-Sophie Corbeau posits that Iran may be attempting to use economic pressure on Asian and European countries—via energy market disruption—to discourage them from supporting the United States and Israel in the current conflict.
Iran's nuclear ambitions: the fine line between balancing regional ... eiir.eu 1 fact
accountThe United States withdrew unilaterally from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in 2018.
Beyond “Maximum Pressure” in US Policy on Iran: Leveraging ... mei.edu 1 fact
perspectiveRobert S. Ford published an article in the Middle East Institute on November 26, 2024, arguing that United States success in Iraq requires being a more reliable partner than Iran.
A Region at Capacity: War, Displacement, and the Limits of ... mecouncil.org 1 fact
claimThe war involving Israel, the United States, and Iran highlights the fragility of the humanitarian landscape in the Middle East.
Experts React | Effects of the Iran War on Energy Markets fpri.org 1 fact
perspectiveIran may require guarantees from both the United States and Israel that attacks will not resume before ending the conflict, regardless of any declaration of victory by President Donald Trump.
Escalation in the Middle East and Beyond unocha.org 1 fact
claimStrikes by the United States and Israel in Iran have affected 190 districts across 20 provinces, causing damage to homes, health care facilities, schools, and a water desalination plant.
The Israel-Hamas War: Risks of Escalation and Scenarios for ... mei.edu 1 fact
claimThe United States is shifting its policy to engage more actively in the Middle East through diplomacy and the deployment of military assets to deter actions by Iran.