Foreign Policy Brief #208 | Nicholas Gordon | July 7, 2025

With a U.S.-brokered ceasefire currently holding between Israel and Iran, let’s take a moment to consider what role the Trump administration has played in bringing the conflict to its current precarious state. In his first term, President Trump—eschewing the advice of allies including France, Germany, and the U.K.—withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in 2015. Under the JCPOA’s terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its weapons-making facilities to international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief worth billions of dollars.

Since the United States’ withdrawal from JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, Iran has expanded its nuclear program, breaching its commitments to the agreement, including resuming uranium enrichment and violating limits on nuclear materials. While the JCPOA remains legally valid, Iran’s violations of the agreement’s terms have thus far thwarted negotiations to revive it or to forge a new deal with the Trump administration. Foreign diplomacy analysts and Israeli officials have identified Trump’s backing out of the deal as a costly blunder that has fueled both Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and rising instability in the middle east. 

Analysis

The negotiations of JCPOA with Iran were conducted by five permanent members of the UN Security Council —China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and Germany, collectively known as the P5+1, as well as the European Union (EU). Without the Iran nuclear deal in place, the negotiating nations’ feared that Iran would take action to become a nuclear weapons state, which would in turn spur Israel to take preemptive military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it had in Iraq and Syria, plunging the region into a new crisis.

Those fears were realized in June when Israel and Iran traded deadly attacks over a 12-day air war. Israel first unleashed a blistering barrage of ballistic missiles and drones at Iran’s nuclear facilities in an attempt to derail their adversary from building atomic weapons; and Iran retaliated. The Israeli strikes killed over 935 people in Iran, including several top Iranian security officials, and injured nearly 5,000 people, according to Iran’s health ministry. Iran’s retaliatory strikes killed over 20 people in Israel, and injured nearly 600 people, according to a statement released by Israeli officials.

In light of the Israeli strikes, President Trump claimed he gave Iran “chance after chance to make a deal,” ignoring the fact that he abandoned the landmark deal that was already in place with Iran. With his typical mix of self-congratulatoryself-absolvement, Trump then wrote on social media, “We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!”

Said ‘diplomatic resolution’ then included the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, an act which Trump declared—with fallacious bluster and childish impetuousness—  “totally destroyed” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, contradicted Trump’s assertion, saying that Iran’s nuclear program was set back mere months.

Numerous national security and regional experts have assessed the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal as a reckless strategic mistake that undermined U.S. credibility, alienated the U.S. from its European allies, and increased the risks of war. Suzanne Maloney, the director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution who has been researching and writing about Iran for decades, stated bluntly that “the American involvement in the strikes on Iran was the culmination of the decision Trump made in 2018 (to pull out of the deal) that left us in this dangerous escalatory moment with very few good options at the negotiating table.”

Iran has not agreed to a new deal with the Trump administration. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s friend and fellow real estate mogul, has been serving as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, leading negotiations with Iran. Witkoff’s lack of expertise, knowledge, and skill in this role has led to inconsistencies in the negotiations. Iranian officials state concerns about U.S. accountability on a new deal after Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA deal. Additional sticking points obstructing a new deal include: Iran asserting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes; Iran demanding sanctions relief; and Iran refusing to make any further concessions on its missile program, which it says is integral to its system of defense.

Israeli military leaders lament the disastrous consequences of Trump exiting the Iran deal, notwithstanding Trump’s claims of the U.S. being Israel’s “number one ally by far.” With tensions between Israel and Iran still inflamed, a full-blown regional war is within the realm of possibility. Further Israeli attacks on Iran could trigger retaliation from several regional terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian-backed Houthis, all of whom have conducted attacks on Israeli targets in the past. Moreover, Trump’s erasing of the stalwart, decade-long diplomatic effort by the Obama and Bush Administrations to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions could fuel a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed bin Salman has stated his country’s intentions to obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran, their longstanding foe, builds one.

Meanwhile, like some deranged carnival barker weighing in on a geopolitical conflict that his actions very well could have ignited, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “…we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! I do a lot, and never get credit for anything, but that’s OK, the PEOPLE understand. MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN!”

What the people understand is that a viable Iran nuclear deal was firmly in place before Trump ruined it without any foreseeable new deal in place. Trump then further undermined Americans’ safety and dignity by blabbing his way through the U.S. attacks on Iran with social media posts in real time.

Diplomatic solutions will indeed be imperative to quell the tensions between Israel and Iran in the days ahead and to avoid getting the U.S. embroiled in another catastrophic conflict in the Middle East. The pressure is on Trump to find a way to enact a new deal curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, because it was his withdrawal from the former deal that has precipitated the current crisis.

Engagement Resources: 

• The Council on Foreign Relations
  • An nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1921 focused on U.S. foreign policy and international relations.
• Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
  • A research institution that analyzes “the dangerous consequences of an overly militarized American foreign policy and presents an alternative approach that

promotes local ownership and resolution of local issues”

• Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
  • Harvard Kennedy School’s hub of research, teaching, and training in international security and diplomacy, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy
• International Crisis Group
  • Independent organization working “to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world”

Foreign Policy Brief #204 | Damian DeSola | June 27, 2025

Introduction

Across the world conflicts are raging, and in their paths leave levels of humanitarian crisis that reach peaks never seen in human history. One of these lesser reported upon conflict regions has the largest humanitarian crisis in recorded history: Sudan.

The Sudanese Civil War has been raging since 15 April 2023 with little sign of a potential ceasefire or peace agreement. Meanwhile, millions find themselves displaced and in need of humanitarian assistance, hundreds of thousands facing food insecurity, and thousands more are being subjected to sexual violence and genocide. It is the goal of this USRESIST Brief review the main actors in this conflict and bring to forefront the massive humanitarian needs of the Sudanese people.

The War

The main actors boil down to two major groups seeking to gain control over Sudan: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The former is the official government’s military, while the latter is a paramilitary group established by the government.

Leading the SAF is President of Sudan General of the SAF Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Al-Burhan played a major role in representing the military in the transitional government that replaced President Omar al-Bashir, the 30-year sitting head of state, in 2019. His role allowed him to consolidate power away from civilians and placing himself at the top of Sudan’s governance.

The RSF is led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti. He is also the chairman of the recently established Government of Peace and Unity, a parallel government meant to consolidate power in RSF held territory and establish legitimacy. The RSF was established in 2013 by the Sudanese government to fight rebellion in the Southwest of Sudan. Eventually, the RSF became a powerful entity and a personal paramilitary organization for President al-Bashir.

After al-Burhan’s consolidation of power, the RSF was placed below the SAF and was poised to have it integrated into the regular military. The spark that ignited hostilities was the SAF’s attempt to disperse RSF forces across Sudan as part of integration efforts. General Hemedti and the RSF viewed these actions as an immediate existential threat and took up arms against the military. The war is ongoing and the SAF has made gains over the RSF, but analysts believe that neither side has the capacity to defeat the other outright. Paradoxically, both sides still seem to believe that there are further opportunities to achieve strategic victories over the other.

The international community has attempted to facilitate negotiations between the SAF and RSF, but efforts quickly broke down. On January 7^th and 16^th of 2025, the US announced sanctions against Hemedti and al-Burhan respectively. The announcement aimed at punishing the military leaders for obstructing peace talks and democratic transition, as well as committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Arab Emirates and Iran have armed the RSF and SAF respectively. Both nations have denied these reports even as shrapnel recovery and analysis prove otherwise.

The Humanitarian Crisis

As a result of this civil war, the people of Sudan are enduring extreme humanitarian distress. As previously mentioned, the United Nations and the International Rescue Committee (IRC)have declared the crisis to be the worst in recorded history. UN experts have also said that the humanitarian and diplomatic support for Sudan is dismal and insufficient for the prevention of further conflict and the reduction of the crisis. The IRC reports that 30.4 million Sudanese are experiencing humanitarian crisis while 14.6 million Sudanese have been displaced. The IRC states that it is “the largest and fastest displacement crisis in the world.”

According to the World Food Programme, Sudan is on the verge of “becoming the world’s largest hunger crisis in recent history”. They report that 24.6 million Sudanese face acute hunger, 637,000 are at catastrophic levels of hunger, and that famine has been confirmed in 10 areas of Sudan.

Mounting evidence of genocide collected by the United Nations and other organizations points to attempts at ethnic cleansing across Sudan. On 7 January 2025, US Secretary of State Blinken announced that members of both “SAF and the RSF had committed war crimes.” Furthermore, that “the RSF and allied Arab militias had committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.” The RSF in particular is found to be committing widespread killings in the West Darfur region of Sudan, with a particular aim at wiping out non-Arab communities in the region. Recently, the UN reported that the RSF killed over 100 people at an internally displaced peoples camp.

Sexual violence in Sudan, technically termed Conflict Related Sexual Violence (CRSV), is also reported as part of these ethnic cleansing activities. The UN reports that the conflict has disproportionately affected women and girls with crimes of “rape, sexual slavery, abduction, and other brutal forms of violence.” There have also been cases of sexual violence against boys and men. CRSV against non-Arabs has increased, and evidence shows these targeted assaults are attached with goals of producing “Arab babies”.

Conclusion

Little is being done by the international community to prevent further atrocities or reduce the humanitarian crisis happening before our eyes. Western policy or media has very little interest in seeking awareness or attempts at reducing human suffering in a nation of 50 million people. The United States is ignoring the situation, as the Trump administration has reduced funding for international humanitarian aid and has recently proposed  reduction in funding for the investigation of war crimes.

Your writer hopes you keep the Sudanese people in mind as you consider the status of our world today and consume the corporate media that prefers your mind focused on the wars they care about.

Engagement Resources

• International Rescue Committee Sudan crisis donation page
• World Food Programme Sudan Emergency donation page

Foreign Policy Brief #206 | Ibra Castro | July 2, 2025 

With Israel and Iran now having engaged in a direct war, trading attacks on each other’s cities, and the US carrying out attacks inside Iran, there’s a high chance that the US could be dragged into a full on war. It’s a prospect that is causing fear in many in the United States, but also being pushed for by others. Regime change has come up as one of the goals of the war and there are those in the US who are in favor of going to war and overthrowing the Iranian government.

Once again, not only is an enemy nation baselessly a short-way away from a nuclear weapon that they would obviously be compelled to use immediately, but the government is oppressive to those that live under its rule and Americans must fly across continents to liberate them. Women, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community would apparently welcome American/Israeli forces invading and overthrowing their government.

Now of course, this is not to say the Iranian government is not oppressive, one would only need to look at the recent sweeping public protests that erupted across Iran in response to the death of Mahsa Amini in custody of Iran’s morality police in September 2023. Iranian authorities after suppressing the protests adopted an even more draconian law that further targeted the rights of women and girls, imposing the death penalty, flogging, prison terms and other severe penalties to crush ongoing resistance to compulsory veiling, according to a 2024 report by Amnesty International. Many more examples could be given and presented by this point alone proves that the egregious situation for women in the country is true.

There is no question that in Iran women are less free than men in society and other minority communities or dissidents to the government’s policies do live under religious authoritarian rule. However, that is not a justification for overthrowing a government of a sovereign nation, and especially one in a region that has already seen multiple governments toppled and then thrown into instability. The argument over different oppressed groups in Iran is being used primarily to manufacture consent for the US to go to war. Even as the IAEA recently made statements that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, the facts proved irrelevant when faced against the argument that because Iran is run by an evil regime it clearly needed to be invaded. Only recently and very quickly have many media pundits, commentators, and politicians come to care about the well being of various groups in this foreign country.

Take this excerpt from an article published in Politico, written by  Mathias Döpfner, titled “Iran’s Target Isn’t Just Israel. It’s Us”. The article seeks to make the claim that the US should go to war, with a section stating “In Iran, women are systematically oppressed and abused. Homosexuals are murdered. Those who think differently are imprisoned and tortured.” 

Another example, from a journalist that has gained notoriety over the last few years covering events in the Middle East, Pierce Morgan, who on a recent episode of his show Pierce Morgan Uncensored, interviewed Iranian Professor Mohammed Marandi. While interviewing the professor, he read a list of repressive aspects of Iranian society, stating “women face severe restrictions when it comes to marriage, women banned from certain professions… Lgbt people suffer systematic discrimination and violence… authorities censor the media… it doesn’t sound like a great place to visit” he said.

Chris Cuomo on his podcast took aim at both Bernie Sanders and AOC for making statements against going to war with Iran, saying “If you’re a feminist how do you not decry the fact that Iran would jail you for how you speak, for how you dress?… they would slaughter your LGBTQ plus constituents.”

On the popular morning talk show The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a republican former White House director of strategic communications said, “Let’s remember too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don’t adhere to basic human rights,”.

These arguments in other contexts are wholly justified and should be made, people regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race should not be made to live in fear or as second class citizens in any state around the world. However the arguments are being presented now not out of genuine concern but are the same claims used to launch and sustain decade long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The mental leap from having issues with a country’s domestic and social policies to then suggest that they then can only be solved through regime change by our armies overthrowing and occupying the country is outrageous.

There are numerous other examples of government oppression and oppression of minorities from all across the globe. For example, in 2024 Peru classified transgender identities as ‘mental health problems’. In 2023 Uganda passed one of the world’s harshest anti-gay laws. The law states that “a person who promotes homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.” It also requires Ugandans to report suspected homosexuals or violations of the law to the authorities. In Saudi Arabia, one of Donald Trump’s most closely allied foreign partners,  women only gained the right to drive in 2018 and are still subjected to strict male guardianship laws. We must also not pay mind that different states in the US have varying degrees of discrimination towards the LGBTQ community and that there is currently a nationwide hunt in the United States by masked agents for both documented and undocumented people of a particular ethnic group with many being sent to a detention facility in Central America with no due process.

Under the arguments made by those listed and others in the media that cite Iran’s treatment of various groups, all of the above-mentioned countries should have their governments toppled. An obviously ridiculous suggestion, which if not only for the hardship it would create within those countries, for the damage it would do to an already unstable international system. If we seek to ameliorate the situation of women, ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community and others in Iran and elsewhere, we could do so through uplifting their voices internationally. Funding projects and encouraging journalism, education, diplomacy and more through international programs like those cut by the Trump administration. We should offer refuge to those fleeing oppressive regimes and not close our borders or implement travel bans to any and all nationals escaping said “evil regimes”. There are numerous ways to help and none of those should include invading and occupying those we claim to seek to protect and liberate.

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

Foreign Policy Brief #205 | Ibra Castro

A projectile hit buildings on Friday as the Israeli Iron Dome air-defense system fired to intercept missiles over Tel Aviv. Credit… Leo Correa/Associated Press

Israel-Iran war and ceasefire deal

For over 12 days Israel and Iran exchange strikes after their long-time conflict hit a flashpoint following Israel’s surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear program and assassination of Iranian leadership. The attack kicked off a sequence of events that has left hundreds reported killed and put the United States at risk of being dragged further into the war. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that Iran has been enriching higher amounts of uranium and in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. While also confirming that the agency had not found “any proof” of an effort to develop a nuclear weapon by Iran.

The statements in the report have been used as a justification for the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israeli and US officials. Iran has since announced that the country is planning to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Israel itself has never signed onto the treaty, and is widely believed to have at least 90 nuclear warheads and materials to create hundreds more. Following the Israeli strikes the United States carried out attacks against three Iranian nuclear sites, Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran’s response to the US strikes soon after were a wave of missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the headquarters of the US Central Command and the largest US base in the Middle East. Following the bombings US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran and pressured both countries into ending their attacks. For the ceasefire is in place but it is uncertain and unlikely that it will permanently cease hostilities.

Colombia confirms that it has been accepted into the New Development Bank, known as the “BRICS bank,” which it applied for in May in China. Credit: Juan Diego Cano / Presidency of Colombia.

Colombia joins the BRICS Development Bank

Last month Colombia was accepted as a new member of the New Development Bank, also known as the “BRICS bank”. The bank acts as the central development bank for the economic bloc led by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It is similar to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and aims to mobilize resources for infrastructure and development projects in emerging and developing countries. Colombia had requested membership into the institution earlier this year, amid tensions with the United States over President Trump’s tariff war and Colombia’s acceptance into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

The country’s entry into the bank does not, however, mean Colombia is now a member of the BRICS economic bloc. Rather, it means Colombia can access resources and financing for diverse projects. Its entrance into the BRICS financial sphere does however point to the bloc’s growing relevance and rival to the existing global financial institutions.

Members of the M23 rebel group are seem after the opening ceremony in Goma, North Kivu province, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, April 7, 2025.

DR Congo and Rwanda sign peace agreement

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed an agreement aimed at stopping the conflict in eastern DRC, according to a joint statement from the two countries and the United States Department of State. The deal, mediated by the US and Qatar, provides for the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of armed groups and the return of refugees and internally displaced people. The deal also gives the US government and American companies access to critical minerals in the region.The decades-long conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels captured swathes of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC. Amnesty International has criticized the deal, stating that the recent peace agreement signed between the DRC and Rwanda fails to address justice for the victims of serious crimes by not including any provisions aimed at holding their perpetrators to account.

Rwanda, which is widely believed to fund and support the M23 militants, denies the claims and insists its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups. Several months ago, the United States launched a major mineral deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Washington’s deepening diplomatic and economic involvement in the region is aimed at securing US access to the region’s mineral wealth. Thousands of people have been killed in Eastern DRC and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced after the conflict intensified earlier this year.

Photograph: EPA Jun 16th 2025|NUUK https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/16/emmanuel-macron-flies-in-to-show-his-support-for-greenland

Macron visits Greenland

While on his way to the G7 summit in Canada last month, French President Emmanuel Macron stopped in Greenland, where he conveyed European solidarity and support for the Danish autonomous territory targeted by US President Donald Trump. Macron warned that Greenland is “not to be sold” nor “to be taken”. The French president, who voices his opposition to Trump’s ideas more often than other European leaders, has positioned himself as an integral voice in Europe amid Trump’s threats to annex territory and pull support from Ukraine as it continues to fight against Russia’s invasion.

Polls indicate that the vast majority of Greenland’s 57,000 inhabitants want to become independent from Denmark, but do not wish to become part of the United States. Unlike Denmark, Greenland is not part of the European Union but is on the list of Overseas Territories associated with the bloc.