A world whose rules are often broken is not the same thing as a world of permanently broken rules—or of no rules altogether. @profpaulpoast.bsky.social makes that distinction in his latest weekly column for WPR:

It is easier to point out the fraying of the existing international order than it is to precisely define what international order is. WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social takes on both tasks in his latest weekly column:

ICYMI: Like JD Vance, I'm no theologian. But unlike Vance, I do know Just War Theory. I also know not to debate Augustine with an Augustinian. My latest for @wpr.bsky.social

JD Vance sought to “correct” the pope on matters of theology. But as @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes in his latest column, Vance is just plain wrong in his understanding of just war theory.

Trump and Vance can’t seem to avoid unnecessary fights—whether it’s a war with Iran or a theological spat with the pope. As columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, they may very well lose the former. They have already lost the latter.

JD Vance sought to correct the pope on matters of just war theology. As WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, Vance is just plain wrong.

God bless the overconfident novice. That is the starting point for my primer on Just War Theory in @wpr.bsky.social...and my critique of J.D. Vance's attempt to apply the theory. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/just-war-the...

Since giving soldiers flu shots is apparently controversial, I'll just highlight the below graph. Research by Robert Callahan & me show that evidence for a "Decline in War" over the past 200 years is driven largely by reductions in deaths from disease. Vaccines & sanitation = good war fighting.

Thank you @nbcchicago.com for this feature on my argument that we are presently in a world war.

ICYMI: Though Trump criticized NATO allies as "useless" and NATO as a "paper tiger", all the bluster won't end the alliance. It's faced crises before, and Trump will ultimately want their help to keep the Strait open when the war is (eventually) over. For those reasons and more, NATO will be fine.

Since the beginning of the War in Iran, Pegah Banihashemi and I have argued that it is unlikely to end quickly. The dynamics we've highlighted (regime resiliency; incompatible interests between the belligerents) persist. That's why we argued a week ago in TIME that the ceasefire wouldn't last

Officials and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are fretting that NATO is on thin ice. As WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, those fears are exaggerated.

Trump’s threats to leave NATO are real. His ability to follow through, though, is constrained. @profpaulpoast.bsky.social explains why NATO will be fine in his latest column for WPR:

Officials and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are fretting that NATO is on thin ice. In his latest weekly column for WPR, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social argues that those fears are exaggerated.

The headline says it all. I argue this week in @wpr.bsky.social that, despite all the bluster, NATO will be just fine. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/contrary-to-...

"As the war in Ukraine drags on and the American and Israeli war against Iran is paused under a fragile cease-fire, we are watching another unwelcome phenomenon return to the global stage: the world war," argues Senior Nonresident Fellow @profpaulpoast.bsky.social. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/12/o...

I was a thrill to have my essay on world war published by The @nytimes.com. But my PARENTS loved that it appeared in their physical Sunday edition :)

And @profpaulpoast.bsky.social has spoken.

Entering 2026, we were already a world AT war. But were are now in a world war. I explain what that means in my guest essay for @nytimes.com www.nytimes.com/2026/04/12/o...

Those who have followed me for a long time know that I can't pass up a chance to dunk on Huntington. Well, I did it again in my latest @wpr.bsky.social www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trump-us-ira...

Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis shaped how the Trump administration sees the world. But as WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, the Iran war is where that worldview has collided with reality.

"The war has demonstrated that Iran’s military advantage lies not in conventional strength but in a broader architecture of asymmetric leverage: hardened missile infrastructure, distributed command networks, maritime disruption capabilities, and a web of regional proxy relationships."

As negotiations to end the War in Iran begin, Pegah Banihashemi & I lay out (in @TIME) why an agreement is unlikely (or, if reached, will not hold) time.com/article/2026...

Trump’s decision to attack Iran is the logical outgrowth of his administration’s religious militarism and its “clash of civilizations” worldview, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes in his latest column for WPR.

The War in Iran is a consequence of - and shows the limits to - the Trump administration's "Clash of Civilizations" world view. My latest for @wpr.bsky.social offers both a primer on Huntington's notorious thesis, and its application in policy circles. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trump-us-ira...

I'm no theologian, but pretty sure God wants no part in this.

ICYMI: Why Niebuhr's Christian Realism, rather than Hegseth's Christian Militarism, offers a better way of viewing the use of power in international politics. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/hegseth-trum...

I don't know where to start with this. But, analytically speaking, it's the logical end of combining Christian Militarism with a "Clash of Civilizations" worldview.

The Trump administration presents its foreign policy as realist. But as @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, combining that with Hegseth’s Christian militarism is not Christian realism—it’s something far more dangerous.

Just posted the following about Niebuhr and Christian Realism. It stands in stark contrast to the Christian Militarism that presently informs the Trump administration's use of military force www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-p...

Pete Hegseth prays for "violence" against America's enemies. As I explain in my latest for @wpr.bsky.social, such Christian Militarism stands in stark contrast to Christian Realism. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/hegseth-trum...

Hegseth’s efforts to undertake a modern-day crusade are part of the Trump administration’s broader embrace of gratuitous violence, columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes in his weekly column for WPR.

Hegseth’s Christian Militarism Is Dangerous for America, by @profpaulpoast.bsky.social. www.worldpoliticsreview.com/hegseth-trum... #Hegseth #Trump

Targeting Iran's public utilities would constitute a war crime, Council Senior Nonresident Fellow @profpaulpoast.bsky.social tells @nbcchicago.com. "There's supposed to be distinction between military and civilian [targets]." More insights ⤵️

One of my favorite parts of my real job is co-hosting a podcast with @profpaulpoast.bsky.social where we talk with alumni of the Division of the Social Sciences at UChicago. Check out our latest episode with a triple alum, Marc Hernandez, Associate Director of The Bridge at NORC.

The Iran war demonstrates that, in arming itself to deter conflict, a state often creates the conditions that could spark it, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

Has a world war already begun? Conversation this week with @profpaulpoast.bsky.social and Paul Saunders at the Center for the National Interest: www.youtube.com/watch?v=poEJ...

In all likelihood, the Iran War won’t end anytime soon. That’s because, as columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, the warring parties are caught in the pernicious trappings of a security dilemma.

It may be a world war but not a World War. My discussion at the Center for the National Interest with @profpaulpoast.bsky.social and Paul Saunders … m.youtube.com/watch?v=poEJ...

“Iran has shown a willingness to attack U.S. allies directly, calling into question the credibility of Washington’s commitment to defending them and even its ability to do so,” WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

Iran has shown a willingness to attack U.S. allies directly, calling into question Washington’s commitment to defending them and its ability to do so. The message to other U.S. allies around the world, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, is clear.

The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has put the Gulf states in Tehran’s crosshairs—through no choice of their own. As WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes, that sends a message to U.S. allies around the world.

@profpaulpoast.bsky.social now says that we are in a world war. We are confronted with a global conflict led by governments that most of us do not support. Bodies as fodder for new and experimental weapons, techno-dystopia as a likely outcome. A reminder: nothing like war to find moral purpose.

Three levels of analysis—of the leader, the state and the international system—offer a mutually reinforcing perspective on the Iran war’s cause, WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

"The conditions that typically produce short wars—a decisive military advantage, an adversary willing to negotiate, and a clear political end game—are conspicuously absent in this conflict," Council Senior Nonresident @profpaulpoast.bsky.social and Pegah Banihashemi write in @time.com.

Far from rewriting the rules of global politics, Trump brought to fruition what decades of U.S. foreign policy and regional dynamics had long made likely, WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social writes.

As the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran drags on, WPR columnist @profpaulpoast.bsky.social shares his thoughts on what the conflict means for other actors across the globe—from Europe to the Gulf states to Russia and China:

Pegah Banihashemi, a doctoral candidate at #UChicagoLaw, and @profpaulpoast.bsky.social dive into the evolving conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran and the factors that may shape its duration and consequences.

How did the U.S. get to war with Iran? In his weekly column for WPR, @profpaulpoast.bsky.social applies three levels of analysis and finds they offer a mutually reinforcing explanation for the war’s cause.

NB: “… the conditions that typically produce short wars—a decisive military advantage, an adversary willing to negotiate, and a clear political end game—are conspicuously absent in this conflict. And ISR military and political leaders have signaled a far less optimistic assessment of the timeline…”