Iran and beyond
(The Soufan Center) The current conflict in the Middle East highlights the challenges Beijing faces in balancing its economic interests and strategic ambitions. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed Beijing’s support for Tehran in safeguarding its sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, and national dignity. With roughly 50 percent of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, any prolonged disruption to China’s energy supplies would pose significant economic and security risks for the PRC. The ongoing conflict with Iran has revealed that the PRC’s support for its partners — especially those in confrontation with the U.S. — is limited by a complex matrix of interests, including its desire to avoid alienating major economic partners and escalating tensions with the West. – Beijing’s Balancing Act Amidst War in the Middle East – The Soufan Center
(The Soufan Center) CENTCOM employed Anthropic’s large language model, Claude, for planning, targeting support, and battlefield simulations just hours after the Trump administration ordered all agencies to cease using Anthropic products. For Operation Epic Fury, Claude was likely accessed via the Department of Defense’s Palantir platforms, which fuse intelligence streams and enable analysts to query large language models for operational planning. Unclear accountability for AI-assisted targeting and weak enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) raise legal and ethical issues surrounding AI-driven military operations. In a full circle development, Iranian retaliatory strikes hit a data center in the UAE, underscoring the vulnerability of regional digital infrastructure, with various economic and security implications for Gulf states. – AI Integration in Operation Epic Fury and Cascading Effects – The Soufan Center
(Linda Robinson – Council on Foreign Relations) The one certainty about war is its unpredictability. I saw this firsthand in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. In March 2003, after reporting on special operations forces during the major combat phase of operations, I attended a desert ceremony to inaugurate the Iraq Governing Council in a tent next to the imposing Mesopotamian Temple of Ur. The council, composed of expats who had not been to their home country of Iraq for many years, gave me the feeling that the plans for a new government might not materialize. Within the month, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s fedayeen and dismissed soldiers were in a full-blown insurgent mode, punctuated by the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq’s capital Baghdad and the death of the UN Special Representative to Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello. The experience in Iraq, a case study for many in poor handling of regime change and nation building, resonates as the world reacts to the strikes on Iran. – The U.S. Campaign in Iran Ignores the Lessons of the Iraq War | Council on Foreign Relations
(David L. Goldwyn – Atlantic Council) Iranian threats against vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz have reduced vessel traffic through the waterway, which carries over 30 percent of global seaborne crude oil. While oil price spikes have so far been moderate, escalating missile attacks and shipping uncertainty raise fears of major supply displacement and potentially triple-digit oil prices if the conflict intensifies. Washington should reengage allies through the IEA and together signal a readiness to carry out a strategic drawdown of reserves, if needed, which will help to reassure markets. – How the US and its allies can prevent an energy supply crisis in the Strait of Hormuz – Atlantic Council
(Atlantic Council) The US-Israeli war against Iran has now escalated into a regional conflict, and consequences are already extending far beyond the Middle East. After asking our Mideast experts to assess the impacts of the war for nearby countries, we’ve turned to our global network to send us dispatches on how leaders in Europe, Asia, North America, and Latin America are reacting to the spreading conflict. – Experts react: How the world is responding to the US-Israeli war with Iran – Atlantic Council
(Brookings) On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a joint military operation against Iran, resulting in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Brookings experts break down what the ensuing war means for Iran and what’s at stake internationally and domestically. – After the strike: The danger of war in Iran | Brookings
Energy Security
(Ronald Fink – Global Finance) Aside from regime change, a central goal of President Donald Trump’s military actions in Venezuela and against Iran has been to reinforce the US as a dominant petroleum producer while curtailing federal support for alternative energy. The war in the Middle East has already injected new uncertainty into global energy markets — with strikes on Iranian infrastructure driving oil prices higher and disrupting flows through the Strait of Hormuz — and may prompt some countries to rethink their dependence on fossil fuels even as short-term demand spikes. In sharp contrast, China is intent on advancing its lead in renewable technology, even as it meets massive domestic demand for coal and oil. These divergent national approaches set up a fundamental global contest: Will fossil fuel dominance or renewable leadership define the future of energy security? As these two superpowers intensify their competition for economic and geopolitical dominance, the world’s climate future and investment flows will largely hinge on which energy model—oil or renewables—proves most viable. The global energy landscape risks a clear split: one path leading to enduring fossil-fuel dependence, the other to a renewable-powered world. – Oil Vs. Renewables: Competing Visions Of Global Power | Global Finance Magazine
US
(James M. Lindsay – Council on Foreign Relations) The conventional wisdom has divided government returning to Washington next January. Democrats are a favorite to retake the House in November. They may even have put the Senate in play. While it is common to mock conventional wisdom, it is also often right. So, it is worth asking, how much would the return of divided government change U.S. foreign policy? The short answer is, probably far less than many think. Before I explain that answer, a bit of history would be helpful. Some midterms have mattered, and mattered a lot, for foreign policy. Some have not. – Midterm Elections Are Eight Months Away | Council on Foreign Relations
(Council on Foreign Relations) Though he was critical of other presidents’ foreign entanglements on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump has demonstrated a willingness to use U.S. military force in his second term. After returning to office in 2025, Trump approved the expansion of counterterrorism operations that included bombing targets in Iraq, Nigeria, and Somalia. He also ordered the U.S. military to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, responded to attacks against U.S. service members in Syria, and targeted Houthi militants in Yemen. In early 2026, after months of military buildup in the Caribbean and U.S. attacks on alleged drug boats, the United States bombed Venezuela and captured the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro. In late February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran after Trump declared nuclear negotiations a failure. Trump has also threatened to launch a military operation in Colombia and suggested the United States could acquire Greenland by force. – A Guide to Trump’s Second-Term Military Strikes and Actions | Council on Foreign Relations
