“Iran’s nuclear weapons program will thus remain in some form. But hope of negotiations to control it is now badly damaged. The result is the worst of both worlds: a vengeful Iran even more determined to get nuclear weapons and no hope of negotiating a way out.”

"Aligning America so closely with Israel at this juncture is only likely to draw the US more deeply into the conflict and expose it to Iranian reprisals." Chris Chivvis in The Guardian👇 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

“US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion—not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one…according to four people familiar with the assessment” cnn.com/2025/06/17/pol…

One week ago, the U.S. and Iran were giving out conflicting dates and locations for the next round of nuclear negotiations. Today, the U.S. is on the verge of conducting a joint military operation with Israel against Iran.

Every proper noun in this sentence is astounding

🆕If the US joined in strikes, it would not eliminate Iran's weapons program entirely without a regime change operation. "That strategy would repeat the tragic errors of the 2003 Iraq war, but on an even larger scale." Chris Chivvis in the The Guardian: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Israel attacked Iran because it feared diplomacy might work. A nuclear deal could lead Iran to be integrated into a new Middle East and allow the United States to pull back from the region. The outcome that would most benefit America is the outcome Israel acted to prevent.

*⃣ New Scholar Spotlight *⃣ Thrilled to welcome Afreen Akhter to Carnegie Endowment American Statecraft Program! Former DAS for South & Central Asia at State Dept + natsec adviser to Sen. Van Hollen. She'll focus on US foreign investment & supply chains. Welcome, Afreen!

America's stakes in Iran: my essay co-published in The Guardian and The American Conservative this morning If the United States joins Israel’s fight to try to finish Israel’s job, it will enter into a war of unknowable scope against a country of 90 million people in a region of marginal strategic

Pleasure to talk with Times Radio about why Iran isn’t getting the staunch support so many expected from “CRINK”: Iran Russia alliance 'exaggerated’ as Putin offers worthless support | W... youtu.be/B3cJ9bO7meM?si… via YouTube

"The United States should always support its allies and partners. But those countries’ wars of necessity should not become Washington’s wars of choice."

Christopher Chivvis : "Netanyahou a pris le contrôle de la politique étrangère américaine" ➡️ l.lexpress.fr/maK l.lexpress.fr/maK

The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back “at least 2 or 3 years.” So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today?

On Face The Nation, with Thomas Massie, I asked what have we achieved? The strikes put our troops at risk & create a generation of hate. Can this country learn? We keep voting for a president who says we’re not going to war & then they get pushed into war by the Beltway.

Araghchi arrives in Moscow to meet with Putin and senior Russian officials t.me/EtemadOnline/4…

"Axis of Autocracies" rushing to #Iran's defense? Hardly. "The coalition has been strengthened by the Ukraine war, but its members’ interests are less well fitted than they appear on the surface." - Chris Chivvis wrote this March in Foreign Affairs 👇 foreignaffairs.com/china/fragile-…

🆕 Chris Chivvis joined Times Radio to discuss #Russia and #China's muted responses to the #IranIsraelConflict. CRINK is not as united as some assume. These autocrats “know better” than to expect major sacrifices from one another. 👇 youtube.com/watch?v=B3cJ9b…

Under the JCPOA, Iran shipped its nuclear fuel out of the country and there were inspectors at Fordow. When you bomb Iran, they move their HEU and hide it and there are no inspections. Diplomacy works better than war. This is not a hard message.

I explained the dangerous allure of regime change in my latest piece in The Guardian. It's not hard for a superpower to topple a foreign regime. Getting the outcome you want is the challenge. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

The Iran-Israel ceasefire may hold, but now is the time to remember the perils of regime change, says Chris Chivvis: "For a superpower, toppling foreign governments is not so hard to do. Getting the outcome you want is. This makes regime change as dangerous as it is seductive."