Iran is caught in a dilemma of its own creation. After years of cultivating asymmetric power and prizing deniability in its responses to the US/Israel, it has shifted to an avowed strategy of direct, open retaliation using conventional means. 1/ Yet in doing so, it is playing to its adversaries' strength - Iran's conventional power pales in comparison not just to that of the US and Israel, but to that of other regional neighbors as well. The Iran-Israel exchange in April highlighted this disparity in capability. 2/

What can we learn from the Iranian attack on Israel, and what is likely to happen next? My thoughts...1/ Iran's attack on Israel was massive and unprecedented. However, it was also well-telegraphed, slow-moving, and played to Israeli defensive strengths. Iran likely hoped a few missiles would get through and cause damage/deaths, which they could then trumpet as a great success. 2/

A few thoughts on this letter. First, it is certainly not the case that the US signs defense treaties only with democracies - the Philippines was not in 1951, nor was South Korea in 1953, and I imagine the list goes on - others can elaborate. 1/

https://twitter.com/ElizHagedorn/status/1709619865462448251

2/ Like other treaties from decades past, a US-Saudi pact would bind an important partner closer to the US at a time of rising geopolitical competition, provide security advantages to both sides, and send a deterrent message to adversaries. 2/

China hosting talks leading to the normalization of Iran-Saudi ties is not insignificant, but I think that Beijing's role and the implications thereof are being exaggerated. 1/

https://twitter.com/fravel/status/1634337330545795072

More than anything, it reflects Beijing's ambition to be seen as a diplomatic player in the region - it has frequently hosted delegations from the Middle East and hoped to sponsor peace talks, mostly without significant impact. 2/