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.
Is the Middle East splitting into rival blocs?
English Summary
Chatham House’s analysis suggests the Middle East is fracturing into distinct rival blocs, primarily driven by the escalating Iran-Israel conflict and its subsequent ripple effects. Evidence points to a hardening of alliances – particularly between Iran and countries like Syria and Lebanon – alongside a growing divergence in priorities and security interests among regional states. This fragmentation threatens the existing regional order and necessitates a reassessment of Western engagement, potentially requiring a more targeted diplomatic strategy focused on managing bloc dynamics rather than pursuing broad regional stability. Policymakers should anticipate increased competition and instability across the region.
中文摘要
智庫報告指出，中東正分裂成若干個競爭對立勢力集團，主要受到伊朗與以色列衝突升級及其帶來的連鎖效應推動。證據顯示，聯盟正在加強——尤其是在伊朗與敘利亞和黎巴嫩等國家的合作——同時，各國在優先事項和安全利益上日益分歧。這種分裂威脅到現有的地區秩序，需要重新評估西方參與，可能需要更具針對性的外交戰略，重點管理勢力集團的動態，而不是追求廣泛的地區穩定。政策制定者應預期該地區的競爭和不穩定性將持續增加。
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.