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.
Iran–United States: Toward an Agreement or a Confrontation?
English Summary
INSS argues that the U.S.-Iran track is in a temporary de-escalation, but absent major Iranian concessions the risk of renewed military confrontation remains high. The analysis cites deep gaps over Iran’s missile program and proxy support, Trump’s credibility pressures after a large U.S. force buildup, and Iran’s regime-survival mindset amid severe domestic unrest and repression as reasons diplomacy may stall. It also notes that Tehran may show limited flexibility on nuclear issues, especially after damage to enrichment capabilities, while refusing concessions on missiles and regional allies. Strategically, a nuclear-only deal with sanctions relief could stabilize the Iranian regime without resolving core regional security threats, leaving Israel and Gulf partners exposed and requiring continued coercive leverage alongside diplomacy.
中文摘要
INSS 主張，美伊互動目前處於暫時性降溫階段，但若伊朗未作出重大讓步，軍事對抗再起的風險仍然偏高。該分析指出，伊朗飛彈計畫與代理人支持問題上的深層分歧、美國在大規模軍力部署後川普所承受的可信度壓力，以及伊朗政權在嚴重國內動盪與鎮壓下以政權存續為優先的思維，皆可能使外交進程陷入停滯。分析亦提到，德黑蘭可能在核議題上展現有限彈性，尤其是在濃縮能力受損之後，但仍會拒絕在飛彈與區域盟友問題上讓步。從戰略層面看，若僅達成聚焦核問題且附帶制裁鬆綁的協議，雖可能穩定伊朗政權，卻無法化解區域核心安全威脅，將使以色列與波灣夥伴持續暴露於風險之中，並需要在外交之外維持持續性的強制槓桿。
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.