Yael Lempert argues that the term 'special relationship' is inaccurate for the US-Israel dynamic, proposing 'exceptional relationship' instead. She highlights unconditional US assistance, military aid, and diplomatic cover as evidence of this exceptionalism, noting that Israel is the largest global recipient of US aid since WWII. This exceptional treatment, she suggests, sets Israel apart from other US allies.
Shibley Telhami: Domestic Politics as the Cornerstone
Shibley Telhami posits that the US support for Israel has primarily been driven by domestic political organization and influence, particularly from pro-Israel lobbying groups, rather than shared values or public sentiment. He argues that this issue only recently rose to public priority, explaining why politicians historically aligned with lobbies without significant public mandate. Telhami contends that the 'values drive' explanation is a post-hoc justification, not the original impetus for recognition.
Daniel Kurtzer: Israel as a Strategic 'Better Bet'
Daniel Kurtzer explains the US support for Israel by framing it as a strategic 'better bet' for American interests in the Middle East, especially after 1967. He highlights Israel's military prowess and its role as a surrogate power under the Nixon Doctrine, which persisted despite numerous bilateral crises. Kurtzer suggests that maintaining this relationship allowed the US to simultaneously engage with 'moderate Arab states,' indicating a pragmatic, interest-based alliance rather than one rooted in shared values.
The current battlefield in Ukraine is characterized by positional and attritional warfare, with neither side able to achieve significant armored maneuver breakthroughs due to a highly saturated drone environment. The kill zone has expanded, making troop and supply movement extremely difficult and costly. While Russia continues offensive attempts, they lack the scale to overcome Ukrainian defenses, and the situation is unlikely to change dramatically in the immediate future. The conclusion is that the war remains a grinding conflict with limited operational shifts.
Andrew S. Weiss: Russian Elite's Disconnect and Economic Determinism
The Russian public remains politically inert, with no significant cracks in elite cohesion or broader political mobilization. The Kremlin's strategy relies on keeping the public passive, and economic factors are not the primary drivers of Putin's decisions. Western reliance on economic determinism to predict Putin's actions is misplaced, as the system allows for resource manipulation to sustain the war. The conclusion is that the war's continuation hinges less on economic hardship and more on Putin's strategic calculus and control.
Dara Massicot: Ukrainian Morale and Existential Fight
Ukrainian morale remains high, driven by the existential nature of the conflict against Russia's perceived attempts to erase their national identity. While the daily reality for infantry is difficult and recruitment is a challenge, the population overwhelmingly supports the war effort due to the lack of viable alternatives. The conclusion is that Ukraine's will to fight is unwavering, fueled by the understanding that defeat carries catastrophic consequences.
Robert Malley argues that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran collapsed due to its inherent ambiguity, particularly concerning the status of the Strait of Hormuz. This shoddy drafting allowed for diametrically opposing interpretations, with Iran viewing it as retaining control over the strait's closure and the US interpreting it as open for passage. This fundamental disagreement, exacerbated by deep mutual distrust, led to Iran's intervention and the MOU's swift demise. The core issue was Iran's need to demonstrate its deterrent capability, fearing the US was testing its resolve to interrupt traffic.
Malley: Iran's Missed Diplomatic Openings
Robert Malley identifies a significant missed opportunity for Iran following the 2015 JCPOA signing. He suggests that President Obama was open to improving relations and that the US and its Gulf partners were experiencing friction, creating a potential opening for Iran to discuss regional policies. However, the Supreme Leader's decision to focus solely on the nuclear deal and avoid broader discussions about regional issues, while maintaining a hostile stance towards the US, was a strategic misstep. This adherence to a rigid anti-US ideology within the Islamic Republic's framework hindered the potential for deeper engagement and normalization.
Wertheim: The Axioms of US-Iran Conflict
US policy towards Iran is built on three flawed axioms: the regime's inherent insecurity and aggression, Iran's status as an existential threat, and the inadequacy of diplomacy, necessitating coercion and military force. These assumptions create a self-perpetuating cycle of conflict.
