The Levant Files

A commentary published in a Russian outlet frames Washington's alliance retreat as a structural shift, not a personality quirk A prominent Russian political scientist has argued that Donald Trump's hostility toward NATO represents not a temporary aberration but a permanent restructuring of American foreign policy — one that will outlast his presidency and fundamentally alter the transatlantic relationship. Writing in the Russian-language outlet Kommersant on 29 March, political scientist Igor Zevelev contended that Trump's approach reflects a broader social and ideological shift in the United States rather than mere personal idiosyncrasy. "Trump is not an exception, but an expression of a broader social shift," Zevelev wrote, arguing that Americans have grown weary of subsidising the security of others in the wake of costly and inconclusive Middle Eastern wars, ballooning national debt, and mounting domestic pressures. Zevelev drew particular attention to Trump...

As the guns continue to roar over Iran, a paradox is emerging at the heart of the US-Iran confrontation: Tehran appears to be holding a stronger hand than at any point since the war began, yet finds itself with no credible interlocutor willing — or able — to meet its terms. Writing in Haaretz, veteran Middle East analyst Zvi Bar'el cuts through the fog of competing narratives to expose what may be the defining contradiction of this conflict. Despite declaring that the war's military objectives are nearing completion, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made clear that the real goal now is to "compel Iran to realize that this new regime is in a better place if they make a deal" — an acknowledgment that Washington has shifted from military conquest to coercive diplomacy. But diplomacy requires a willing partner on both ends. And that, Bar'el argues, is precisely what is missing. Goals Abandoned, Leverage Surrendered In the weeks since strikes began, President Dona...

US-Israeli military operations against Iran intensified on Saturday, with strikes targeting petrochemical facilities in Khuzestan province and a site near the Bushehr nuclear power plant, as President Donald Trump issued a fresh 48-hour ultimatum demanding Tehran open the Strait of Hormuz. One person — identified as an Iranian national employed at the Bushehr plant — was killed by projectile fragments in the strike near the facility, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which added that a building at the site was damaged by shockwaves. Russia's state nuclear company Rosatom subsequently evacuated 198 of its remaining staff from the plant, with its chief Alexei Likhachev warning that events were unfolding "in line with the worst-case scenario." Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that strikes near Bushehr posed significant risks not only to Iran but to the wider Gulf region, cautioning that radioactive contamination could potentially threaten ...

The destruction of the B1 bridge near Karaj is more than a tactical strike. It is a statement of intent — a signal flare illuminating the direction of a war that is rapidly shedding its pretense of surgical precision. If the systematic dismantling of Iran's military infrastructure over the past five weeks represented the "conventional" phase of this conflict, then Thursday's strike on a suspension bridge and the bombing of the century-old Pasteur Institute may well mark something darker: Iran's Dresden moment. Dresden, February 1945. Allied forces reduced one of Europe's most magnificent cities to ash and rubble in a firestorm that killed tens of thousands of civilians. Military historians still debate its necessity. Moral philosophers still mourn its execution. Courts of history have never fully forgiven it. The question now is what comes after Iran's Dresden. President Trump has not been subtle. He has openly threatened to destroy electrical grids, desal...

Former Iranian Foreign Minister M. Javad Zarif, writing in Foreign Affairs on April 3, 2026, argued that Iran should use what he described as its strong position in the war with the United States and Israel to seek a comprehensive peace agreement rather than continue fighting. In the article, “How Iran Should End the War,” published by Foreign Affairs, Zarif said Iran did not begin the conflict but has managed to withstand weeks of bombardment while preserving its leadership and responding militarily. According to Zarif in Foreign Affairs, some Iranians want to continue the war until the United States and Israel are punished, but he warned that further fighting would only bring more civilian deaths, infrastructure damage, and regional instability. Instead, Zarif wrote in Foreign Affairs that Tehran should “declare victory” and push for a negotiated settlement. He proposed that Iran could accept limits on its nuclear program and reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the lifting of...

Lebanon is teetering on the edge of state collapse as an escalating Israeli military campaign compounds years of political dysfunction, economic meltdown, and humanitarian crisis, according to a sweeping analysis by Maha Yahya, Director of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Yahya warns that Israel's intensifying assault — launched in response to Hezbollah's rocket and drone attacks following the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — is pushing the country past its breaking point. "Israel is using the war and Hezbollah's provocations to justify a much larger — and potentially devastating — assault on Lebanon itself," Yahya writes. Since early March, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes across Lebanon, targeting not only the south but also Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced a "targeted ground operation" into southern Lebanon, drawing direct compari...

China is trying to present itself as a peacemaker in the Iran war, but the effort also serves a wider strategic goal: letting Washington absorb the costs of a conflict that could weaken US power in the Middle East and beyond. A closer reading of reporting by Joyce Karam for AL-Monitor and The Economist shows a Beijing that wants diplomatic credit, but also expects geopolitical gain if the war drags on. In AL-Monitor, Karam writes that China’s foreign minister Wang Yi hosted Pakistan’s Ishaq Dar in Beijing to promote a five-point peace plan aimed at an immediate ceasefire, peace talks, protection of non-military targets, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and respect for UN resolutions. The plan is framed as a diplomatic opening, but Karam argues that the conflict has become too entrenched for an easy breakthrough, especially because the main actors — the US, Israel and Iran — remain committed to their military and political objectives. The timing matters. According to Karam, Be...

In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing US-Iran conflict, American forces destroyed a major suspension bridge under construction near the Iranian city of Karaj on Thursday, signaling what analysts say could be a pivotal turn in Washington's war strategy toward targeting civilian infrastructure. As reported by Jared Szuba of Al-Monitor, Iran's government blamed both the United States and Israel for Thursday's airstrikes, which also destroyed part of the prestigious Pasteur Institute of Iran, a leading medical research college in Tehran that has operated for over a century. The strike on the B1 bridge, located approximately 22 miles northwest of the capital, came just hours after President Donald Trump openly warned he would order the US military to target civilian infrastructure if Iranian leaders refuse to negotiate an end to hostilities. Two US officials confirmed to Al-Monitor that the American military carried out the bridge strike, with one claiming it "eliminated ...

Support for Israel’s war with Iran is still a majority position, but it is weakening fast. What began as a burst of public rallying behind the campaign has quickly given way to fatigue, doubt, and a growing sense that the war’s goals may not be achievable. As underlined by  Dahlia Scheindlin in the Haaretz, i n the first days of the fighting, optimism was high: many Israelis believed the campaign could inflict major damage on Iran’s nuclear, missile, and political infrastructure. But by the end of the first month, that confidence had eroded sharply. According to the Institute for National Security Studies, the share of Israelis who thought Iran’s regime would be significantly harmed fell from 69 percent at the start of the war to 43.5 percent, while support for continuing the war until the regime is overthrown dropped to 45.5 percent. The public’s mood is being shaped by the daily reality of the war. Repeated missile alerts, shelter runs, and the strain of living under constant thr...