Follow Us
If you're having accessibility issues, please let us know.
The 2026 World Economic Forum — one of the largest gatherings of economic leaders each year — recently concluded. This year’s conference came on the heels of increased U.S. international intervention — including seizing Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela and continued posturing over Greenland’s sovereignty, eliciting pushback from NATO.
Global conflicts continue, from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war to tensions in the Middle East and Africa, among other conflicts. With the 2026 mid-terms gearing up, foreign policy is taking center stage.
Experts from Michigan State University can react and comment on increased tensions and U.S. relations with key regions across the globe, including: the Middle East, Europe, Greenland, Asia, Latin America and the future of international organizations such as NATO.
Russell Lucas is a professor at James Madison College and the College of Arts and Letters. He is an expert on international relations and domestic politics and culture of the Middle East, as well as theories of global studies. He is also a scholar of Middle Eastern politics with attention to foreign policy and public opinion.
Contact: relucas@msu.edu
“At the time of this writing, President Trump has held off on attacking Iran. Such an attack would be designed in theory to support the wave of anti-regime protests in Iran to hopefully lead to the downfall of the government of Iran. The Trump administration would be wise to refrain from using U.S. military force to attempt changing Iran’s regime. Bombing would not be an effective method of supporting Iran’s anti-government protesters.
“U.S. bombs will not prevent Iran’s government from repressing the protesters. In fact, U.S. attacks would allow Iran’s government to paint the protesters as supporting a foreign plot against the Islamic Republic. Iran’s regime is complex with a diverse coalition of social groups still supporting it despite its declining legitimacy because of its poor performance in the eyes of many other Iranians.
“The governments of most U.S. allies in the region such as Qatar, Turkey or Saudi Arabia are also worried about the effects of a U.S. attack on Iran since they are likely to be struck by any Iranian reaction. Moreover, both governments and publics in the Middle East are starting to see that the U.S., and not Iran, is the source of threats and chaos in the region.”
Yael Aronoff is a professor at James Madison College and the College of Arts and Letters and is also the Serling Chair of Israel Studies. Her expertise and teaching focuses on Israeli politics, cultures, and society, as well as foreign policy. Her research explores the conditions under which wars end, and a process towards peace is achieved.
Contact: harr1565@msu.edu
“The ceasefire that went into effect in October 2025 has warded off the worst of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – but it is fragile and has been violated repeatedly by both Hamas and Israel. The process it lays out is complex and daunting, requiring the rebuilding of homes, schools, and hospitals in Gaza, the disarmament of Hamas (with unanswered questions as to who would do so and how), and an Israeli withdrawal from the entirety of Gaza. There is a fear on all sides: fear on the part of Palestinians of being governed by non-Palestinians, and/or of continued Israeli occupation, as well as fear among some of Hamas’ continued control; fear on the part of Israelis of Turkey and Qatar’s involvement – as supporters of Hamas -- on the Gaza Executive Board, and, of the Board’s inability or unwillingness to disarm Hamas; there is fear among many around the world, including US allies in Europe, over Trump’s role as Chairman and his “pay-to-play” policy in determining the Board’s makeup.”
The success or failure of the reconstruction of Gaza – and the myriad conflicts and concerns that flow from that -- hinges on trust in and credibility of the Board on the part of all those involved, and that trust is not currently there. It also hinges on the verifiable implementation of measures that can build trust and hope for people to live in futures of dignity, equality, and freedom.”
In order for that to happen, the immediate needs of Palestinians in Gaza – food, medicine, shelter, security – must be met, but at the same time, it is crucial to move towards a long-term peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that would ensure a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in which both populations can live in peace, security, dignity, and freedom. For this to happen, new leaderships are also required.”
Matthew Pauly is an associate professor in the Department of History at the College of Social Science where he is an expert on Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Russia. He holds interests in the histories of nationalism and national identity, childhood and youth, education, philanthropy and medicine.
Contact: paulym@msu.edu
“Any proposal for a ‘land swap’ is a misnomer. Russia is not proposing giving up Russian land, but rather Ukrainian land that it illegally occupies. As Zelensky quite rightly argues, Russia seeks to deceptively secure through negotiations after what has largely been an unsuccessful quest on the battlefield the past 12 years. Although Russia is slowly advancing, the cost is high in terms of both fatalities and resources. The Russian capture of the entirety of the four provinces it claims to have annexed (the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts) should not be presumed.
“It is imperative that the burden of surrender does not fall on the victim when the aggressor demonstrates no significant concessions. Russia’s insistence on a peace agreement instead of a ceasefire is a strategic maneuver designed to prolong hostilities and allow for continued bombing of Ukrainian cities. A ceasefire would provide a temporary respite from hostilities, allowing the commencement of genuine negotiations.
“More Ukrainians are willing to concede the temporary loss of Ukrainian land, but they will not concede the sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine has built up a network of defenses on land in the eastern part of the country that Russia is now demanding. Forfeiture of this land would expose Ukraine in the same way Czechoslovakia was fatally harmed by the handing over of the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in 1938. Permanent surrender of Crimea would allow Russia to control the Black Sea trading routes and threaten the Ukrainian supply of grain to the world. It would also present a key security vulnerability. Russia launches most of its drones and missiles launched against Odesa and southern Ukraine from Crimea. It could continue to do so whenever it wanted.”
Matt Zierler is an associate professor at James Madison College where he is an expert in issues relating to foreign policy, international security, international relations theory, international law, and international cooperation.
Contact: zierler@msu.edu
“The Trump foreign policy reflects a lot of uncertainty in current global politics. When Putin’s Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, it was a sign of aberration to the liberal international order that had been undergirding world politics since the end of World War II. Instead of rejecting those positions challenging the virtues of international law, the Trump administration seems to embrace the idea of not being fully constrained by international law and norms.
“The invasion of Venezuela to arrest Maduro could have been seen as helping to promote democracy but it seems to be based more on the Trump administration’s desire to control economic resources and ensure dominance over the Western Hemisphere. The current discussion about the fate of Greenland — while not neglecting the fact that there are international security concerns in the Arctic — seems more focused on Trump’s desire for control and status rather than continuing to work with our historic allies to ensure security and stability. There is a lot of concerns that the way in which the Trump foreign policy is done could have drastic negative long-term consequences for the United States and the world.”
Robert Brathwaite is an associate professor at James Madison College where his teaching and research interests include topics associated with international security, strategic competition with China, terrorism, cyber warfare, religious violence and the conduct of civil wars.
Contact: brathwa1@msu.edu
“The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy frames China as a primary strategic competitor emphasizing economic, technological and military competition rather than ideological confrontation with China. A core theme for the current administration emphasizes “peace through strength,” through the promotion of U.S. technological and economic power. This perspective will inevitably create tension in the U.S.-China relationship. However, the administration has pursued selective engagement with China on core issues like trade and fentanyl, which signals an approach that blends competition with transactional diplomacy rather than full containment. Time will tell whether this approach can mitigate core disagreements over Taiwan and other attempts by China to reconfigure the global order to reflect its strategic interests.”
Myunghee Lee is an assistant professor at James Madison College where her expertise interests include authoritarian politics, democratization, protest and foreign policy. Her regional focus is East Asia, particularly the Korean Peninsula and China.
Contact: leemyu12@msu.edu
“Trump’s foreign policy in his first term was often characterized as transactional; his second term is far more complicated. It combines personalistic and ideological goals with an explicit projection of power in international affairs. He does not view multilateralism as necessary, nor does he see the post–World War II international order and the UN system, which is designed to create spaces for cooperation and negotiation rather than the rule of power, as constraints on his decision-making in the international arena. He is surrounded by ideologues in his cabinet who actively pursue their own ideological agendas. This tendency is evident in his recent efforts to capture Maduro, which run counter to international law while projecting American military might. His interview with the New York Times further encapsulates his worldview: He stated that he sees no constraints in international politics other than his own morality. As he erodes international organizations, global politics gradually shifts from cooperation toward power politics.
“What does this mean for East Asia, where tensions between a rising power (China) and an established power (the U.S.-led alliance system) are intensifying? Trump has not attacked Asian alliances as directly as NATO, largely due to concerns over China’s rise. However, the administration’s approach to NATO and its rhetoric toward alliances can slowly erode trust among allies. Meanwhile, China continues to project itself as a defender of the international order. Over the past years, China has sought to expand its influence within international organizations, emphasizing its commitment to international cooperation and multilateralism. At the same time, it aims to revise the order by removing the liberal international order’s emphasis on democracy and human rights. Trump’s attacks on international organizations and his power-driven approach may therefore create new opportunities for China, potentially expanding its presence and influence in the international arena.”
Galia J. Benítez is an associate professor at James Madison College where she is an expert on international political economy and transnational drug trafficking and can comment on issues related to illicit drug markets, drug trafficking routes, and antinarcotics policy in Latin America and beyond. She examines how illegal drug networks operate, how governments respond to them, and the political and economic consequences of the global drug trade for states and societies.
Contact:benitez6@msu.edu
“U.S.–Latin American relations have long been framed through drug trafficking and security cooperation, relying far more on the stick than the carrot. Aid, law enforcement cooperation and conditionality often pressure governments to comply with U.S. priorities, while development or institutional support takes a back seat. This pattern has a long history, but it reached its peak under the Trump administration, with threats of military action and harsh sanctions making the asymmetry painfully clear.”
Mark Axelrod is a professor at James Madison College and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. His expertise and research center on international environmental law as well as international and comparative environmental governance, with a focus on justice outcomes.
Contact: axelrod3@msu.edu
“After World War II, the United States led the development of an international legal order based on reciprocal long-term commitments. These commitments have allowed the U.S. to maintain its global dominance by providing incentives for other states — including rising powers — to also maintain the U.S.-dominated system. Even aggressive actions are often justified in legal terms in order to avoid upending the system.
“The United States has always been particularly cautious in agreeing to international environmental commitments, signaling that it was focused on upholding those provisions to which it has agreed. In response, other countries have been willing to share resources — without the U.S. resorting to costly use of force or reduced economic relations — in those areas (e.g., high seas fishing limits) where the U.S. maintains commitments. Without an expectation of reliable U.S. legal compliance over time, other countries’ willingness to mutually follow rules may be diminished, dismantling benefits the United States has accrued over the last 80 years. Without being “in the room” for environmental negotiations, such as the Paris Climate Accords’ evolving guidelines, U.S. influence is further reduced. Overall, the inability to rely on U.S. commitments is positioned to be costly to U.S. economic and security interests.”
Matthew Pauly is an associate professor in the Department of History at the College of Social Science where he is an expert on Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Russia. He holds interests in the histories of nationalism and national identity, childhood and youth, education, philanthropy and medicine.
Contact: paulym@msu.edu
“A security guarantee ‘like NATO’ sounds good, but the devil is in the details. Why not just be granted NATO membership then? It remains to be seen if the Europeans, and certainly the United States, would be willing to commit ground troops and an air defense that would defend Ukraine from an attack. In terms of what is clear, the United States should refrain from participating in the appeasement of Russia. Russia’s primary objective is to dismantle the rule-based international order that has safeguarded the transatlantic community since the conclusion of World War II.
“The Europeans need the United States to continue placing pressure on Russia by demanding a ceasefire, imposing new sanctions and continuing to militarily supply Ukraine. The pursuit of peace is a noble idea, but it is absurd to think of Putin, an indicted war criminal, as a practitioner of peace. The Europeans understand this better than the United States because they face the very real prospect of a war that expands beyond Ukraine’s borders and they host millions of Ukrainian refugees. However, the United States has a real interest in forcing Putin to accept responsibility for this deadly war that he began. American security has been eroded by the Russian invasion, and American economic interests in Europe are in peril because of the instability that the war has wrought.”
If you're having accessibility issues, please let us know.
SPARTANS WILL|© Michigan State University|