The article argues that the Federal Reserve's recent rate hike decision, while justifiable on inflation grounds, highlights a critical lack of an underlying, transparent policy framework. The core problem is that the Fed's decisions appear discretionary, leading to market uncertainty because the committee's judgment, rather than clear data, dictates policy shifts. The author proposes that the Fed adopt a formal monetary policy rule—an algebraic formula linking the target rate to indicators like inflation and unemployment—to replace subjective guidance. Implementing such a rule would provide market predictability, enhance transparency, and shield the Fed from political attacks by making deviations from the standard easily quantifiable.
Do Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions inevitably lead to military action?
English Summary
The Chatham House analysis argues that 'maximum pressure' sanctions, especially those aimed at regime change, are inherently unstable and create a dangerous escalatory momentum toward military action. The evidence points to repeated failures—such as the decades-long sanctions on Cuba and the inability to topple the Venezuelan regime—demonstrating that sanctions alone are insufficient to achieve stated political goals. Consequently, the risk of military intervention is not limited to a single administration but is a systemic policy danger for any US government that implements punitive sanctions without a coherent strategy for de-escalation or negotiation. Policymakers must therefore view sanctions as a limited tool, ensuring they are paired with clear off-ramps to prevent unnecessary conflict.
中文摘要
查塔姆學會的分析指出，所謂的「最大壓力」制裁，特別是那些旨在促成政權更迭的制裁，本質上是不穩定的，並會產生危險的升級動能，最終導向軍事行動。證據顯示，從古巴數十年的制裁，到無法推翻委內瑞拉政權的經驗，都表明單純的制裁不足以達成既定的政治目標。因此，軍事干預的風險並非僅限於某個政府時期，而是任何實施懲罰性制裁、卻缺乏明確降級或談判策略的美國政府所面臨的系統性政策風險。政策制定者必須將制裁視為一種有限的工具，確保其搭配清晰的退出機制，以預防不必要的衝突。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC serves as a critical warning that the global health security system is fundamentally unprepared for future biological threats. The difficulty in containing this outbreak is compounded by the rising risk of emerging pathogens and the growing potential for AI misuse in bioweapon development. Policy must therefore shift from reactive, crisis-driven funding to sustained, proactive investment in resilient public health infrastructure, particularly in conflict zones. Addressing this requires strengthening global surveillance, ensuring consistent international cooperation, and mitigating the intersection of conflict, climate change, and disease spread.
-
3.A Design Lab Pilot to Inform Strategies for Expanding Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Community Mental Health Centers (RAND)
Despite MOUD being the standard of care for opioid use disorder, access remains severely limited in Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs), which serve the primary population with co-occurring disorders. A Design Lab pilot identified payment limitations and regulatory complexity as the chief barriers to implementation. The most feasible and high-impact strategy identified was establishing a structured learning exchange between CMHC leaders and insurers to improve reimbursement understanding. Policymakers and payers are therefore advised to pilot this learning exchange model to initiate broader payment reform and expand evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.