Iran

Former State Department attorney analyzes U.S. letter to UN Security Council that presented legal arguments for U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Trump’s strike on Iran violated constitutional limits on the president's unilateral power to take the nation to war—an authority the Framers reserved for Congress.

Experts analyze critical dimensions of Israel’s strikes relevant responses, covering nuclear diplomacy; strategic, security, and regional implications; and international law.

The White House's future BDA briefings on the Iran strikes will likely project certainty where analysis still urges caution.

How the growing politicization of the U.S. intelligence community undermines the integrity of decision-making on Iran and national security more broadly.

Why did Israel, and then the United States, decide to attack Iran now, even as U.S.-Iranian negotiations sputtered along?

The ceasefire may stop the bombs, but it will not reverse the repression that has long defined Islamic Republic’s internal trajectory.

The White House’s legal justifications for attacking Iran are unconvincing and raise concerns about unauthorized use of force. Congress should push back.

Whether newly announced ceasefire actually leads to end hostilities will not change the new reality: a comprehensive agreement is less likely now than before the bombing

An expert policy and legal assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and what comes next.

Part of our ongoing series on the Israel-Iran war.

Experts who advised a president on use of force answer a full range of basic questions on the conditions under which action against Iran would be lawful, and what options Congress…