That we have managed to avoid full-on regional war in recent years has been taken by some as a demonstration that such risks are overblown, but speed with which war is escalating on multiple fronts belies the idea of another quick, contained military operation for Trump, whatever his initial intent.

I’m frankly a little surprised they’ve entered the war in light of their degraded state. Attention will now turn to the Houthis to see if they follow suit.

This. Whoever it is.

“But the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over—” www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u...

3 takeaways from this interview. There is a possibility of coming Trump-Israel divergence regarding desired end states via talks w/regime; an emboldened Trump hardly considers how things could go wrong; and he doesn’t have a fixed idea about what this war is for. www.theatlantic.com/national-sec...

Bringing clarity to the proceedings: “That process should soon be starting in that, not only the death of Khamenei but the Country has been, in only one day, very much destroyed and, even, obliterated.”

The lack of clarity and the inconsistency on display could help de-escalation despite a lack of strategic gains, but there will also be real pressure from some quarters to keep going, with all the risks that entails. Trump’s own words effectively endorsing regime change will be used as a prod.

In the event it is confirmed, whether or not Trump can use killing of Khamenei as a de-escalatory off ramp will depend on how Iran responds. May be too much for the regime to simply call off its response in such circumstances. And then managing the escalatory cycle becomes partly a matter of luck.

They just have to threaten, and let Maritime insurance rates do the rest.

On Hormuz, threats are one thing and active measures to deter transit or to attempt to militarily close the Strait are another. Any disruption will be very problematic, but Iran’s ability to actually through is not a given.

Whatever happens next, it will loom large for the Gulf that they have come under attack three times in a span of months. With Iran now also directly attacking civilian targets it puts into question a lot of assumptions upon which the region has been organized.

This is absolutely on point. Additionally, it’s not just that the war lacks cognizable objectives, it’s that the war is unjustified and strategically suspect.

#Breaking an official with the EU naval mission Aspides says vessels have been receiving transmission from Iran's revolutionary guards saying no ship is allowed to pass the strait of Hormuz

If Iran begins to hit civilian infrastructure and targets in the Gulf it really does change the stakes and raise the possibility of a much more damaging conflict, including economic spillover.

Seems germane.

In fact, this war was effectively triggered by Trump’s ultimatums and threats during the Iranian protests. This is absolutely Trump’s chosen course of action.

The signaling from U.S. and Israel regarding aims will leave Iranian leaders with the conclusion that the stakes are likely existential for them. Obviously will impact their approach to retaliation and escalation.

With these hits on US assets in the region, Iran is answering a long-open question about their capacity to retaliate. There is now a question about Iran’s capacity to continue launching, but it’s now a race to knock out launchers before interceptor stocks are depleted.

An absolutely elective war, driven by Trump’s remarks around the protests and lacking clear goals. Whether US avoids a more protracted, costly war now depends on Iran’s response.

Absolute refusal to acknowledge the reality of Trump-driven foreign policy: “But Mr. Day noted that conservative restrainers remained skeptical of Mr. Rubio, whom they see as a hawkish advocate of American global hegemony.” Trump’s Foreign Policy: Resurrecting Empire www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/u...

War powers vote on Iran for next week.

Trump is emboldened by previous mil. operations, dating back to killing Soleimani in first term, and the fact that US has not suffered significant retaliation in response. Trump likely thinks Iran a paper tiger now. But once begun, military conflict hard to calibrate and depends on how Iran responds

Beyond the broader questions about preparedness that these deployments raise, this situation also suggests some very real limitations on capabilities with respect to the current deployment. May also figure into Iranian thinking.

US-Iran talks in Geneva, latest Trump administration news | CNN edition.cnn.com/us/live-news...

Raises the further question as to what next if a limited set of strikes does not change Iran’s approach to talks with the U.S.

NEW STATEMENT | The U.S. and Iran Can Still Avoid a War Both have never been so close to a major war. Escalation risks make any conflict scenario perilous for all concerned. A narrow path to averting war exists, but time is of the essence. www.crisisgroup.org/stm/middle-e...

The momentum toward a U.S. military confrontation with Iran has been building alongside the growing deployments to the region, but there is still space and time to avert a war and all the uncertainty and risk that would entail. www.crisisgroup.org/stm/middle-e...

Notable to see the various stories out today on the warnings regarding Iran war risks. Obviously these risks were evident prior to the massive regional buildup, so it’s unclear if this is just a preemptive shifting of blame if things go badly or an attempt to influence the final decision. Maybe both

Who would ever have guessed, but turns out Bret Stephens is in favor of taking military action against Iran.

This is so great. Ibou needs to get a contract sorted.

Happy to speak with @ishaantharoor.bsky.social for this piece. Despite the meetings and announcements and logos and all the rest, it doesn’t appear that the Board actually does anything. That’s obviously very bad news for Gaza.

Just to further highlight how muddled Trump administration thinking on Iran is, the initial impetus for strikes was Trump’s unplanned remarks on the Iranian protests, but current talks are about the traditional security files - nuclear, missiles, proxies - and don’t at all touch on governance.

Trump’s Middle East buildup has him backed into a corner: he needs a good ROI for the significant forces and resources tied up. This makes strikes more likely — or else this may be one of the costliest bluffs in history if he doesn't go through with it. blinks.bloomberg.com/news/stories...

Our piece from last week ahead of today’s meeting of the Board of Peace. So far, despite the various announced pledges, there are not many concrete answers as to how to move beyond the current phase.

"The Times understands that the UK is yet to give permission for the US to use the bases in the event that Trump orders a strike on Iran, owing to concerns that it would be a breach of international law." This is a BIG deal given the US-UK military relationship. www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/...

Not only has there been very little public debate about a potential military strike on Iran, there hasn’t even been a public discussion about what a strike is intended to do or what the Trump administration hopes to achieve.

A reflection of the bet the Trump administrative has made on al-Shara’a and the priorities of some senior political appointees at DOD: www.wsj.com/world/middle...

This is depressing. TAA’s detractors were morons.

Whither all the prioritizers we heard so much about? Hard to take that seriously when posture is driven by whims.

Dear friends on Bluesky, it's been an overwhelming week since the mass layoff at the Post. I'll be continuing the work and would be so grateful if you sign up here to keep up with my future journalism. docs.google.com/forms/d/1dlh...

NEW COMMENTARY | When the Board of Peace Meets in Washington, Gaza’s Future Will Be on the Line The Board of Peace is tasked with making peace in Gaza stick. However, the body’s prospects remain unclear and the challenges facing it are steep. www.crisisgroup.org/cmt/middle-e...

This became its main function at one point with the anti-ISIS mission evaporating. There is a lack of appreciation for the kinds of resources that were necessary to defend this vulnerable outpost at various junctures.

A new piece from me and my colleague @maxji.bsky.social on Trump’s Board of Peace and the steep challenges it faces in Gaza as Trump looks to expand its reach elsewhere. www.crisisgroup.org/cmt/middle-e...

Diabolical season. Finding new, excruciating ways to lose. But you can hardly complain if you play a half of football like that first half.

Wow this is unexpected good news - apparently in the last 24 hours, the US started talking with Russia about a potential "handshake agreement" re: expiration of New START. Sounds like it still needs approval from Putin and Trump, though. www.axios.com/2026/02/05/n...

Latest cycle of tensions with Iran began with threats made regarding the protest movement and yet the mooted frameworks for talks have been centered on the standard list of security issues. As such, if U.S. does launch a further round of military strikes, it’s very unclear what the goals will be.

Luckily for the Post there aren’t major national security issues related to the Middle East.

Incredibly grim. So many talented people affected here. The illogic of this is staggering.

“In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.” www.whitehouse.gov/articles/202...

Going back to the the killing of Qassem Soleimai during the first Trump admin., Trump has demonstrated a willingness to assume major risks, as demonstrated by June Iran strikes and the operation to capture Maduro. And he is hugely emboldened by the fact that escalation has been averted each time.