Perspectives Papers

Perspectives Papers provide analysis from BESA Center research associates and other outside experts on the most important issues pertaining to Israel and the Middle East.

View Archive

What is my country: Striving for power or Fleeing weakness?

The Epic Fury/Roaring Lion War is a litmus test for the power index of many countries. For the purposes of this paper, power resides in a country’s security and economic posture. In between the pole of the global main power (the United States) and the pole of many weak countries (Spain as a new member) the other countries exist on a continuum between two types: those that strive for power and those that flee from weakness. Based on a preliminary and qualitative perspective, it can be said that the United States, China, and Russia grew stronger as a result of the war; Iran has returned to fleeing from weakness. France and Britain established themselves on the side of fleeing from weakness, while Germany took another step toward achieving power. Saudi Arabia's pursuit of power has been undermined, as has the other Gulf states, fle from weakness. Israel advanced in its pursuit of power, but that power is unbalanced. Further in-depth power analysis is required as the 'dust settles', and it should be used to advance significant opportunities and hedge risks.

Why Did Trump Go to War with Iran? It Wasn’t Just Bibi

The popular premise that Donald Trump decided to go to war with Iran because Benjamin Netanyahu asked him to is a misleading distortion. Trump’s decision was the product of a 40-year personal grudge, a hard lesson learned from Kim Jong-un's nuclear immunity in Hanoi, and a cold-eyed calculation about China's cheap Iranian oil lifeline. Trump saw an opportunity to shatter the Iran-Russia-China-North Korea axis in a single blow and to remind the world that American power is by no means in decline. Netanyahu gave the door a push, but it was already wide open.

Deprived of Nukes, Iran Will Likely Ramp Up Its Chemical and Biological Weapons Capacities

Alongside Iran’s persistent progress towards nuclear weapons, which was recently stemmed – apparently for good – by Israel and the US, the Islamic regime possesses arsenals of other weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological weapons (CBW). Now that its nuclear strategy has been largely derailed, the Iranian regime is likely to continue to pursue and to considerably upgrade its ballistic capabilities, particularly in terms of CBW warheads. Ballistic CBW warheads (possibly including radiological weapons as well) will thus constitute Iran's primary strategic offensive alignment.

After the Iran War: Israel and the Threat of Nuclear War

US Vice President J.D. Vance returned from Pakistan without achieving an Iran war settlement. For Israel, this failure is concerning not just because it signifies continuing nuclear danger from Iran, but because it portends further regional destabilization and nuclear proliferation. For Israel, nuclear threats are not just about Iran. Even a favorable end to the current war could produce another dangerous enemy or configuration of enemies. Over time, this adversary (e.g., Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) could create a new risk of nuclear war, even if it were to remain non-nuclear. Jihadi terrorist groups could also act as force-multiplying surrogates of an “Iran replacement enemy”. To prepare for such threats, Jerusalem will need to engage in comprehensive theorizing, not the visceral seat-of-the-pants policies and intra-crisis hyperbole favored by US President Donald J. Trump. To enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrent, Israel should consider ending its policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The Indo-Pacific:
Challenges and Opportunities

The Indo-Pacific region is at the center of global geopolitical and geoeconomic dynamics. The region, encompassing pivotal powers such as Japan, India, China, and the United States, is a focal point for international relations, underscoring its significance as a power center. Over the past 25 years, the trajectories and implications of current events and policies in the region have strikingly shifted, with China taking on the role of rival. In view of the current conflict in the Persian Gulf, the countries of the Indo-Pacific region will have to reevaluate their relationships with Iran and consider the implications of the conflict for their own national interests.

North Korea and the Implications of Operation Epic Fury

The US-led Operation Epic Fury (Operation Roaring Lion in Israel), co-conducted with Israeli military forces (IDF), provided North Korea with useful lessons about America’s capability to attack a state with limited deterrent capabilities. For Pyongyang, it was a test case that illustrated what might happen if President Donald Trump ever decided to attack North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities and its leadership. The war between the US, Israel, and Iran will likely force Kim Jong-un to reevaluate North Korea’s security policies.

India as Israel’s Strategic Rear: A New Phase in India-Israel Security Relations

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel in February 2026 was not just another diplomatic stopover. It represented a strategic reset that consolidates a shift from a procurement-based relationship to a model of systems integration. This shift positions India as a strategic rear and capability partner for Israel in a changing threat environment that now entails a saturation threat (UAVs, loitering munitions, multi-layer attacks), terrorism as policy, supply-chain vulnerability, and intensifying great-power technological competition. In this context, elements usually treated as “economic” – AI, quantum, digital public infrastructure, a free trade agreement – are no longer peripheral civilian add-ons. They are part of the infrastructure of national resilience, standard-setting, supply-chain endurance, and operational advantage. The core test after the visit is whether the strategic intent is translated into durable mechanisms like projects, standards, co-production, and standing working groups.

Welcome to the New Iran

While it is still too early to evaluate the effects of Operation Epic Fury/Roaring Lion in terms of the internal situation in Iran, it can be argued that the operation was the tipping point that took Iran from a strong theocracy to a weak dictatorship. Within this framework, we can talk about the crumbling of the idea of the rule of the clerics, segmentation of the regime's top echelon, the radicalization of its strategic approach towards the region, the increasing murderousness of the regime’s repression of the population, and the economic aid to the regime's supporters at the expense of the general public – the last of which will move into a battle for survival resulting in less protest and more violence. Iran is a completely different country from the one we analyzed prior to the most recent conflict. It is now a country that contains both risks and opportunities that require a completely new situational assessment and planning.

Why Did the US Just Lift Sanctions on Iranian Oil?

On March 20, 2026, the US announced a temporary 30-day lifting of sanctions on the sale and delivery of Iranian oil. The permit applies only to oil that was already loaded onto tankers by that day, and the oil in question must be unloaded by April 19. This should not be misread as a gesture to Iran. It is intended as a means of quickly releasing tens of millions of barrels of already-purchased oil onto the global market. The object is to ease pressure on oil prices, which should buy the US more time to achieve its war aims.

The Epic after the Fury: Analyzing Alternative Futures

The achievements of the joint American-Israeli Operation Epic Fury/Roaring Lion are fundamentally changing Iran's strategic situation. However, several key variables remain that can affect the operation’s results. Future scenarios can include both the continuation of the existing regime and the rise of an entirely different regime in Iran. Preparations should be made now for the post-war period, including plans to enforce ceasefire terms and to resume hostilities, should either prove necessary. The international community should demand a serious agreement that addresses the chemical, nuclear, missile and proxy threats posed by Iran, as well as the regime’s oppression of its people and threats to the Strait of Hormuz. Efforts should be increased to find leaders who can run Iran with a different approach: a “Gorbachev” in the existing regime and/or a “King” in another.