Ron Agam

For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has said, loudly and repeatedly, that it wants Israel wiped from the face of the earth. The world mostly nodded, filed the rhetoric away, and moved on. Israel could not afford to.

The strategic intimacy between Xi Jinping and Iran is not an accident of diplomacy. It is a feature of a far more brutal design: a global system where massive Chinese trade surpluses weaken Western economies while financing instability abroad.

The history of L’Oréal stands as one of the most complex corporate narratives of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 

For more than four decades, the United States has struggled to develop a coherent strategy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Donald Trump on Wednesday, the agenda will be formally “Iran.” 

For years, Western policy toward Iran has been built on a quiet assumption: that the Islamic Republic can be managed, delayed, contained, but not fundamentally confronted. 

For years, the Iran debate has been trapped in a lazy binary: deal or war, diplomacy or regime change, restraint or strike. 

MBS’s Saudi Arabia has changed. Not in the caricatured sense of “going Islamist,” but in a way that can be strategically dangerous for Israel if Jerusalem keeps reading Riyadh through an old lens.

A former French president’s private admission reveals the West’s original mistake—and why it still shapes the region

Every time Iran enters survival mode, diplomacy becomes a tool of the regime, not a constraint on it. Talks buy time. Time reduces pressure. Pressure fades , and repression resumes. This is not miscalculation; it is strategy

History rarely offers clean victories. Transformational moments tend to emerge from prolonged tension, moral ambiguity, and leaders willing to act when outcomes are uncertain. The Iranian crisis sits firmly within this historical pattern. 

Iran in 2026 is no longer a question of trendlines or theories. It is a question of timing.