The article argues that modern conflicts are increasingly defined by attrition, driven by three strategic gaps: the difference between nominal military power and usable capacity; the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs in a technologically advanced battlefield; and the detachment of military means from clear political objectives. Evidence from Ukraine and the Middle East demonstrates that sustained logistics, rapid technological adaptation, and proxy networks are now more decisive than sheer military size. For policymakers, this implies a strategic shift away from seeking short, decisive victories toward preparing for prolonged, high-cost engagements, requiring a focus on sustainable supply chains and defining concrete, attainable political end-states.
Why are Middle Eastern governments lobbying against a US attack on Iran?
English Summary
Chatham House argues that many Middle Eastern governments now oppose a US strike on Iran because their threat perception has shifted from fear of Iranian regional dominance to concern about Israeli escalation and the consequences of an Iranian state collapse. It points to the weakening of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” after 7 October 2023, Israeli military pressure across the region, Assad’s fall, and heightened Gulf alarm after Israel’s September 2025 strike on Doha as evidence of this shift. The analysis says regime-change war and broad containment are viewed by Arab states as dangerous and historically ineffective, with high risks of fragmentation, migration, militancy, and regional spillover. The policy implication is to favor de-escalation and targeted, policy-based pressure on Iran’s nuclear, missile, and proxy activities through diplomacy rather than large-scale military action.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所指出，許多中東政府如今反對美國對伊朗發動打擊，原因在於其威脅認知已從擔憂伊朗在區域內的主導地位，轉向憂慮以色列升級行動及伊朗國家崩潰的後果。該文以2023年10月7日後伊朗「抵抗軸心」的削弱、以色列在區域各地的軍事施壓、阿薩德政權垮台，以及以色列於2025年9月襲擊杜哈後波灣國家的警戒升高，作為此一轉變的證據。分析認為，阿拉伯國家將政權更替戰爭與廣泛遏制視為危險且在歷史上成效不彰，並伴隨高度的碎片化、移民、激進武裝與區域外溢風險。其政策意涵是，應透過外交手段，對伊朗核計畫、飛彈與代理人活動施加有針對性、以政策為基礎的壓力，優先採取降級而非大規模軍事行動。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
3.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
4.
The article analyzes Finland's agreement to coordinate its conventional forces with French nuclear capabilities, clarifying that no nuclear weapons will be stationed in Finland. The author argues that increased communication between nuclear powers, rather than the deployment of weapons, is beneficial for reducing the risk of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation, particularly near Russia. For Europe, the policy recommendation is a responsible middle course: strengthening non-nuclear military capabilities to deter Russia while simultaneously negotiating a stable system, such as non-aligned buffer states. This approach is presented as a diplomatic alternative to both aggressive military action and surrender.
-
5.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.