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.
Middle East and North Africa Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme argues that better policy on the region requires grounded, field-based analysis of often overlooked drivers of conflict, governance stress, and state–society change. It supports this approach through a research model combining field data collection, bilingual policy publications, convening with decision-makers across sectors, and direct briefings in MENA, the UK, and the US. The programme’s focus on geopolitical competition, transnational conflict dynamics, political-economic networks, and accountability is presented as the analytical basis for more realistic policy choices. For strategy, the implication is that governments and institutions should rely on locally informed, cross-regional, and cross-sector evidence to design interventions and partnerships that are politically feasible and context-specific.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）中東與北非計畫主張，若要制定更有效的區域政策，必須建立在扎根在地、以田野為基礎的分析之上，並重視那些常被忽略、卻驅動衝突、治理壓力與國家－社會變遷的關鍵因素。該計畫透過結合田野資料蒐集、雙語政策出版、與跨部門決策者之間的對話召集，以及在中東與北非、英國與美國的直接簡報，來支持此一研究取徑。其對地緣政治競爭、跨國衝突動態、政治經濟網絡與問責機制的關注，被定位為形成更務實政策選項的分析基礎。就策略層面而言，這意味著各國政府與機構應依賴具在地知識、跨區域與跨部門的證據，來設計在政治上可行且符合具體情境的介入措施與夥伴關係。
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.