Attention to the Unseen

Mohammad Yaghi writes: War between the United States, Israel, and Iran has now moved from threat to reality. What had been framed as coercive diplomacy backed by calibrated force has crossed into open interstate confrontation. Yet the underlying logic that produced this outcome has not changed. The road to war was not paved by a sober calculation of costs and benefits, but by an illusion of control: the belief that Washington could coerce Iran into submission through threats, deployments, and…

Read More Read More

Orly Noy writes: The siren shattered the silence of Saturday morning across Israel. Not to urge civilians to rush to shelters, but rather to announce the outbreak of war itself — almost like a triumphant fanfare. After more than a week of nerve-wracking uncertainty, tossed between tense anticipation of a war we were told repeatedly was unavoidable, and faint hopes that diplomacy might yet prevail, it was finally upon us. “You can’t step in the same river twice,” goes the…

Read More Read More

The Washington Post reports: President Donald Trump launched Saturday’s wide-ranging attack on Iran after a weeks-long lobbying effort by an unusual pair of U.S. allies in the Middle East — Israel and Saudi Arabia — according to four people familiar with the matter, as Israeli and U.S. forces teamed to topple Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei after nearly four decades in power. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating…

Read More Read More

Ellie Geranmayeh writes: The US and Israel have jointly launched an unprecedented military campaign against Iran, in violation of international law. President Donald Trump’s announcement of the war leaves no doubt that his end-goal, at least for now, is regime change. He has left no off-ramps but complete surrender for Iran’s leadership. A cornered Iran is now fulfilling its threats to respond with widespread counter-strikes on targets across the Middle East. This is Trump’s war of choice. But that does…

Read More Read More

Nicole Grajewski writes: For decades, Tehran calibrated its enrichment activities as a form of what strategists call “coercive ambiguity,” maintaining a threshold position that was threatening enough to matter politically without being unambiguous enough to justify an overwhelming response from adversaries. The logic was straightforward: Stay below the red line, use the program as leverage in negotiations, and extract concessions from a West that preferred a deal to a war. This approach worked, up to a point. The JCPOA [Joint…

Read More Read More