Military strategists have long warned that war should be waged only if those waging it know what they want to achieve. Herein lies a problem: Washington's war aims in Iran are incoherent.
Tehran isn't likely to easily fold if/when Trump attacks. This means that the longer a military confrontation drags out, the more untenable Washington's position becomes.
Trump will be wondering if a military confrontation with Iran would help or hurt his dwindling popularity at home, making his decision to strike one of the riskiest bets of his presidency
The United States is bolstering its military presence across the Middle East ahead of scheduled nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva, while simultaneously preparing strike options if diplomacy collapses…
His meeting with Trump on 11 February, moved up a full week from its original date and just after talks began between Iran and the US, isn't a routine consultation between allies—it's an intervention
Christophe Ventura, a French expert on Latin America, speaks to Al Majalla about Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, and China's role in a continent that the US president considers his backyard.
After months of behind‑the‑scenes talks, Rabat and Tel Aviv are deepening ties under a new phase of the existing Abraham Accords, with Western Sahara being dangled as an incentive
While many would like to see Addis Ababa distracted, they also worry about a refugee spillover should a civil war break out. It might be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'