Each has three core national objectives that are internally contradictory. Any two can be pursued simultaneously, but never all three. Until these triangles are broken, there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East—only the same fire burning in different forms.

The security foundation on which the GCC’s economic model was built has been seriously undermined. Unless these nations can forge a new, credible framework, it will be difficult to sustain the foreign investment and confidence that have fueled their growth.

The war against Iran is not going well for Israel, which is being bombarded daily, nor is it going well for the US, which has seen its military bases and strategic facilities in the region attacked and degraded by Iranian drones and missiles. Of course, Iran suffers most of all, but it has shown a remarkable capacity to fight a war of attrition, despite the dreadful daily onslaught from the skies. Its reconstituted leadership has shown not a hint of the “unconditional surrender” that Trump is demanding.

Whether assessing the prospects of the war in Ukraine or predicting the trajectory of relations between the United States and Russia, U.S. policy discussions have generally revealed a cautious, realistic tone: The war is unlikely to end quickly, and the rupture in the international order is widening.

The U.S.-Israel strike on Iran lacks a clear legal basis or credible justification and represents a high-risk gamble by the Trump administration. Despite early military success, the operation faces uncertain prospects, including limited chances of regime change and the risk of prolonged conflict.

The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli strikes has created leadership uncertainty in Tehran, weakened Iran’s regional network of allies, and accelerated shifts in Middle Eastern power dynamics. For China, the conflict threatens energy supplies and Belt and Road investments while potentially expanding Beijing’s diplomatic role if it maintains neutrality and engagement with all sides.

Critics of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel point out that US President Donald Trump has no plan for what comes next. And they are not wrong: when Trump boasts that he can resolve wars in a single day, he merely exposes the limits of his attention span. But the real problem is not the shortness of Trump’s time horizon; it’s the narrowness of his threat perception.

Myanmar’s military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party won tightly controlled elections, consolidating legislative dominance under Senior General Min Aung Hlaing despite persistently low public support since the 2021 coup. While China pragmatically backs the junta to secure strategic interests such as rare earth supplies and infrastructure access, a potential rapprochement with the United States under Donald Trump could complicate Beijing’s influence.

Will it be sovereign development or a return to the “backyard” viewpoint? The Western Hemisphere’s future will not be secured by returning to the logic of exclusive spheres of influence but by embracing a genuinely plural rules-based order.

After decades of development and growth, Vietnam seems poised to enter a new chapter of dynamic economic growth, but at a time when the U.S. is teetering on losing global standing, how will Vietnam’s future play out?