Iran

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.

Quick, in-and-out precision operations that inflict maximum damage with minimum US casualties have long been a favoured tool of US presidents. Is Trump planning one for Iran?

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

Iran's vast oil and strategic mineral reserves have moved to the centre of negotiations with the US, which could reshape Trump's calculus

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…

As the US and Iran head to talks in Geneva, competing forces are pulling Trump in opposite directions. There are only two "good" scenarios in front of him, and neither will be easy to achieve.

Islamabad emerges as a key bridge in tricky conflicts from Iran to China

Decapitation strikes against the country are likely. An invasion is not.

Trump seems to be ending America's longstanding role as crisis manager, preferring to use decisive force to change realities on the ground before negotiating