Israel

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.

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.

For knowledge, accountability, and reparation we need to reconceive of the consequences of violence for Gazan civilians as composite, aggregate, collective, and layered harms.

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.

The constellation of forces in Israel, the United States, and beyond complicates efforts to find an off-ramp to the war.

"Another legal framework – the ongoing armed conflict framework – is more factually and legally viable than the anticipatory or preventive self-defense frameworks."