It is clear that Iran has suffered significant damage to its leadership, its military and industrial capabilities, and perhaps its nuclear program. The future of the region will be profoundly

Parts of Iran's nuclear network seem invulnerable without ground troops. Can Israel overcome that hurdle while minimizing danger to its own population?

There are growing tensions in the conservative movement over whether President Donald Trump should agree to a new nuclear deal with Iran or use force against it.

The attacks bore the twin hallmarks of Israeli military actions under Netanyahu: Tactically brilliant but lacking any strategic vision

The president had asked Israel to hold off. Now he’s scrambling to make a deal in negotiations that have become even more complex.

This deal isn’t just about nuclear weapons. It’s about the future of the Middle East, the credibility of US foreign policy, and the strength of American leadership.

They died in their own beds. Hossein Salami and Ali Shamkhani—Iran’s most senior military officers and the stewards of Iran’s nuclear weapons program—had spent years threatening Israel with destruction.

Israel's attack on Iran began as a campaign against its nuclear program but has already begun to morph into something far riskier: regime change. It is staking its strategy on deep US involvement, but fault lines between the two are already visible.

Iran appears ready to retaliate if it faces too much pushback. It says this could be “proportionate,” although that leaves many options open.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his country will strike "every site and every target of the ayatollah regime" in Iran.

Israel’s attack on Iran has left a terrible regime with only terrible options — and created a narrow path to a better outcome for the region and world.