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.
US–Israel war with Iran: What is the impact on Gaza?
English Summary
Chatham House's recent analysis finds that the ongoing US-Israel war with Iran has effectively sidelined the Gaza ceasefire, leading to deteriorating humanitarian conditions and a narrowing of political options within the territory. The report highlights how the conflict is reshaping the calculations of regional and international actors, solidifying temporary border arrangements and security measures. Consequently, the webinar suggests a shift towards a more permanent, albeit precarious, status quo in Gaza. This underscores the urgent need for humanitarian aid and a re-evaluation of long-term strategies for the region.
中文摘要
智囊團文章摘要：最新智庫Chatham House的分析指出，目前美以與伊朗之間的持續衝突，實際上已使加薩地帶的停火協議陷入停滯，導致人道狀況惡化，並縮小了該地區的政治選項。報告強調，這場衝突正在重塑區域及國際參與者的考量，鞏固了臨時邊界安排和安全措施。因此，該網絡研討會建議，加薩地帶正朝向一種更為持久，但同樣脆弱的現狀轉變。這凸顯了對人道援助的迫切需求，以及重新評估該地區長期策略的必要性。
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.