From global think tanks
The analyses published here do not necessarily reflect the strategic thinking of The Global Eye.
Today’s about: Board of Peace; US; US-Iran-Middle East
Board of Peace
(Brian Katulis – Middle East Institute) US President Donald Trump hosted an idiosyncratic gathering of global representatives in Washington on February 19 that included some key Middle East figures. They all came together under the banner of peace to discuss the next steps in Gaza, just as the US was sending more military forces to the region to pressure and possibly target Iran. These two big strategic files, Iran and the Israel-Palestine question, have loomed large in US policy for many years, and quite often they are treated as separate in a “stove-piped” manner by US administrations — Republican and Democratic alike. But in my discussions with multiple figures and analysts from the region, these issues are very much seen as interlinked in ways that are often not reflected in how US policy is crafted. Put simply, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s actions in destabilizing the region with ballistic missiles and the lack of serious progress toward a just and sustainable peace between Palestinians and Israelis are inextricably entwined. With President Trump preparing to deliver the first State of the Union address of his second term on February 24, an address typically focused on a crowded slate of domestic policy issues, the Middle East might end up rising higher on the agenda — particularly if the United States moves closer to another round of conflict with Iran. – Board of Peace meets as storm clouds gather for another possible Middle East war – Middle East Institute
(The Soufan Center) U.S. President Donald Trump hosted the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace yesterday in Washington, D.C., attended by more than two dozen world leaders. During the inaugural Board of Peace meeting, President Trump framed the war in Gaza as “effectively over,” despite ongoing ceasefire violations. From a geopolitical perspective, it is impossible to disaggregate the situation in Gaza from what is happening in the West Bank, as rampant instability in one theater inevitably spills over to the other. The Board of Peace has the potential to evolve into a successful coordination platform if it manages the myriad issues, but, absent that, it risks becoming diplomatic noise in an already overburdened geopolitical landscape. – Inaugural Board of Peace Meeting: Opportunities, but No Shortage of Challenges – The Soufan Center
US
(James M. Lindsay – Council on Foreign Relations) President Donald Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress next Tuesday night at 9 p.m. E.S.T. The speech is his opportunity to make the case to the American public for the policies he has enacted over the first thirteen months of his second term, reverse his sliding poll numbers, and rally Republican voters in preparation for the November midterm elections. The White House has done little to preview what precisely Trump will say to Congress, though domestic issues will likely dominate. It is a good bet that his speech will go long, and that he will stray from his prepared remarks. Every one of his five addresses to a joint session of Congress has run at least an hour; his speech last March ran for nearly one hour and forty minutes as he frequently went off script. It is also a safe bet that Trump will claim credit for a string of historic successes, leaving the pundits on cable news networks and social media to argue over which are real and which are imagined. – Donald Trump Delivers the State of the Union Address Tuesday Night | Council on Foreign Relations
(Heather Hurlburt, Julián Ventura – Chatham House) The US Supreme Court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs in a long-awaited ruling that will be seen as a blow for the president’s economic agenda. By 6-3 the court found that President Trump exceeded his authority by using a law reserved for national emergencies to impose tariffs. They ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 did not grant the president the power to impose tariffs, which have been a central part of Trump’s economic agenda during his second term. Trump called the ruling ‘deeply disappointing’ and said he would impose a new levy. – US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs: Early analysis from Chatham House experts | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank
(Inu Manak – Council on Foreign Relations) The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs against nearly every country in the world is unconstitutional. It could prove to be a devastating blow to the president’s tariff agenda, as the court made clear that this presidential power cannot be used to levy tariffs because Congress did not intend for it to be used in this way. Though this ruling settles an important legal matter, the battle over tariffs is far from over. While American businesses and consumers may cheer the court striking down Trump’s second latest tariff adventure, the court decision is likely to be a temporary break in the president’s ongoing trade wars. In fact, Congress has delegated several trade authorities to the executive branch over the years. And, shortly after the ruling, Trump announced that he would reach for them to rebuild his tariff wall. However, each tool has specific limitations that he will need to consider and could face additional legal challenges. Here’s a detailed breakdown of some of the main authorities that Trump will lean on to keep tariffs on his trade agenda. – How Trump’s Tariffs Could Survive the Supreme Court Ruling | Council on Foreign Relations
(Michael Froman – Council on Foreign Relations) This morning, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision and declared that President Donald Trump did not have the power to issue tariffs by way of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 6-3 decision was based on an analysis that taxation is clearly the authority of the Congress, that IEEPA doesn’t mention the word “tariffs,” and that no previous president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. IEEPA is only one of several statutes under which the president has imposed tariffs. Going forward, the administration has a number of other authorities it can use to try to replace the IEEPA tariffs, but they are more constrained. They either require greater process, such as investigations, or they are time limited. For example, under Section 122, a president can impose up to 15 percent tariffs for 150 days by citing a balance of payments crisis and using that time to launch and complete processes under other authorities, such as Sections 201, 232, 301, or 338. (My colleague Inu Manak, senior fellow for international trade, has just published an analysis for CFR.org which outlines in more detail these authorities and how Trump could use them.) At a press conference today, Trump announced the imposition of a 10 percent tariff under Section 122. – After the Supreme Court Ruling, What Is Next for Trump’s Tariffs? | Council on Foreign Relations
US – Iran – Middle East
(Michael Eisenstadt – The Washington Institute) For decades, Washington struggled to counter Tehran’s asymmetric way of war, rooted in a failure to understand the Islamic Republic’s military modus operandi and fears of another Middle East “forever war.” The twelve-day conflict in June 2025, however, confounded predictions that a U.S. attack on Iran would prompt massive retaliation, lead to thousands of American casualties, and spark an “all-out” regional war. In turn, it laid bare longstanding misconceptions regarding the ability of the United States and Israel to manage escalation with Iran. These lessons have particular relevance as the United States contemplates military action against the regime following its massacre of thousands of protesters. – Deterrence and Escalation Dynamics with Iran: Insights from Four Decades of Conflict and a Twelve-Day War | The Washington Institute
(Alex Vatanka – Middle East Institute) The United States’ rapid military buildup across the Gulf has triggered a familiar anxiety in Iran, but the Iranians’ reading of American intentions has grown sharper and more layered than at any point in recent years. Iranian officials and analysts now assume that the goal is neither a full-scale war nor a symbolic show of force. Instead, they believe the US is preparing for a short, high-impact military campaign that would cripple Iran’s missile infrastructure, undermine its deterrent, and reset the balance of power after the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025. In Tehran’s view, this is not just about forcing Iran back into nuclear compliance; it is about permanently altering the strategic equation that allowed it to strike Israel directly for the first time and suffer minimal consequences. Iran’s strategic community has been unusually candid in public. Commentators aligned with the establishment argue that Washington’s demands are no longer confined to the nuclear file. – Iran considers its response to potential renewed US-Israeli strikes – Middle East Institute
(Steven A. Cook – Council on Foreign Relations) The U.S. military has amassed significant air power that reportedly could be poised to strike Iran within days. Diplomacy between the two sides has so far failed to yield clear progress on disputes over Iran’s nuclear program or a range of other issues, including the country’s missile program, support for regional armed proxies, and harsh crackdown on civilian protesters. For countries in the region, the prospect of U.S. strikes has stirred concerns over reprisals on their territory and a new round of regional upheaval. But U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled that forcing change in Iran will lead to a more peaceful Middle East. – Why a Nervous Mideast Braces for a New Round of Upheaval | Council on Foreign Relations
