For nearly eight decades, American grand strategy in the Indo-Pacific has rested on a singular assumption: that the United States can project decisive military

The conflict and its surrounding issues are characterized by a series of interconnected paradoxes, none of which comes with a simple, direct or rapid solution. The United States and Iran appear destined for a prolonged strategic contest.

What the U.S. president needs is not another, more intense round of airstrikes but a cease-fire formula that every side can sell at home.

Artificial intelligence is becoming a new arms race, and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past perhaps a drastic unification of competing models could prevent catastrophe.

The risks of unintended maritime and aerial incidents triggered by more frequent and complex military activity are no longer confined to the China-U.S. relationship. They are extending into a more complicated and less predictable multilateral environment.

The focus of the Russia-Ukraine war is shifting from front-line engagements to deep-strike operations, while the central arena of competition is increasingly defined by each side’s capacity to sustain the war effort. In this evolving landscape, drones have emerged as a pivotal force.

The summit illustrated that NATO is evolving from a traditional alliance founded on shared values and underwritten by American security guarantees into an alliance increasingly defined by capabilities, responsibilities and transactions.

Great powers have long made policy toward an imagined Iran—one that none of them had the patience to truly understand. Now, the great powers must rely on deep understanding, mutual respect and presence. But presence is precisely what Washington and Beijing lack.

The U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding is only a political commitment and carries no legally binding force. What truly matters is whether the two sides can conclude a formal peace agreement within the 60-day negotiating period. Three formidable hurdles stand in the way.

The policy is turning the world from a rules-based order to a strength-based one. January’s intervention in Venezuela may have seemed like a great success for the Trump Corollary, but it was actually a self-defeating gamble—physically controlling Venezuela in a short time but damaging U.S. soft power, its alliance system and its global strategic interests in the long run.