Follow us on social

Raisi

What to take away from new Iranian president's debut

Ebrihim Raisi came out swinging at his first press conference, indicating new challenges ahead for Washington-Tehran diplomacy.

Analysis | Middle East

Iran's president-elect Ebrahim Raisi adopted a tough tone on foreign policy in his first press conference today, declaring that Iran’s proxy armies and ballistic missiles are not up for negotiation, and that he won’t meet with President Biden.

But there are still few signs that his presidency will bring about any changes to Iran's current red lines in regards to JCPOA renewal. Outside these red lines, however, things will likely get tougher, with ultra-conservative Raisi’s election.

Iran has long maintained that neither its regional presence nor its ballistic missiles are up for negotiation. Nor did President Rouhani agree to meet with Barack Obama or Donald Trump. In that sense, Raisi's position is not new.

Nevertheless, Raisi's orientation will likely make U.S.-Iran diplomacy more challenging. While Iran has rejected diplomacy on its missiles, negotiations on missile proliferation have been a theoretical possibility. 

The Rouhani government maintained that the JCPOA was the floor, not the ceiling of diplomacy with the United States. Under Raisi, Iran may de-prioritize diplomacy with Washington, and focus instead on an Iranian pivot-to-Asia. As such, the JCPOA may become both the floor and the ceiling under Raisi, much to the chagrin of the Biden administration who strongly believe that the JCPOA cannot endure unless it is made "longer and stronger."

But Raisi's election has not changed U.S. national interest. It is still pivotal to U.S. security that Iran's pathways to a bomb are blocked. Trump has proved that there is no alternative to the JCPOA for achieving that goal — regardless of the name of the President in Iran.


Ebrahim Raisi Banner is hung in June 2021 ahead of recent elections. (Farzad Frames/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Middle East
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.