Think Tanks
Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Rand: Trump Retirement Accounts - Costs and Savings
SANTA MONICA, California, March 17 -- Rand issued the following news:* * *
Trump Retirement Accounts: Costs and Savings
Millions of Americans work in jobs that provide no savings plan for when they retire. Calling that a "gross disparity," President Trump promised in his recent State of the Union speech to provide them with a government-sponsored plan.
That could save federal and state governments trillions of dollars over time, RAND found. Researchers used new tools to estimate the costs and savings from such a plan, decades into the future. Their analysis was part of the RAND von Furstenberg ... Show Full Article SANTA MONICA, California, March 17 -- Rand issued the following news: * * * Trump Retirement Accounts: Costs and Savings Millions of Americans work in jobs that provide no savings plan for when they retire. Calling that a "gross disparity," President Trump promised in his recent State of the Union speech to provide them with a government-sponsored plan. That could save federal and state governments trillions of dollars over time, RAND found. Researchers used new tools to estimate the costs and savings from such a plan, decades into the future. Their analysis was part of the RAND von FurstenbergFamily Budget Model Initiative.
A plan like the one Trump outlined would not only give workers a cushion for retirement, researchers found. With enough time, it could also start winding back the federal deficit.
How It Would Work
The White House has yet to release more information. But Trump did say the plan would offer workers the same kind of retirement accounts that federal workers have. The federal government would match up to $1,000 a year in individual contributions.
RAND modeled what that would mean for thousands of simulated workers, with different savings and investment-return rates. For example: a young worker making $42,000 a year who decides to set aside 5 percent for retirement. That contribution would qualify for the full federal match. Assuming a modest 8 percent rate of return and some wage growth over time, that worker would retire after 40 years with $1.1 million in the bank.
Costs and Savings
The program would cost the federal government $285 billion over its first ten years, RAND estimated. That assumes full participation, with all eligible workers contributing enough to get the full match.
Budget analysts often stop there, after ten years. But the RAND Budget Model enables researchers to go much further out. And when researchers ran the numbers on these retirement accounts, they found that something interesting starts to happen within about 20 years.
As workers build up their retirement savings, they become less dependent on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income, a Social Security program. Enrollment in those safety-net programs falls. Right around year 30, researchers estimated, those savings start to overtake the total costs of the program.
By year 40, total government costs would add up to nearly $1.2 trillion. Total savings would have pushed past $5 trillion.
"If you just look at the first ten years, then, yes, you get people with better retirements, but it costs the federal government a lot of money," said RAND senior mathematician Carter Price, who led the analysis. "But when you go out longer, you start to see workers who are no longer reliant on these safety-net programs. And that could result in meaningful deficit reduction in the long run."
Who Would Benefit
RAND estimates that around 63 million American workers have no retirement savings accounts through their employers. That would make them eligible for the government accounts. Around two-thirds of those workers would qualify for the federal match.
The program would especially benefit middle-income earners. They can more easily save enough to qualify for the full federal match. Lower-income workers are more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck. For them, setting aside enough to get the match would leave less money to pay the bills or buy groceries.
To help, the government could structure the program so those lower-income workers get the match earlier, researchers noted. That would raise costs in the short run. But it would likely yield additional savings to Medicaid and Social Security down the road.
RAND's modeling assumed that the government match would start to phase out for workers making more than the median U.S. wage of $42,000 a year. It would fall to zero for those making more than $65,000.
New Capabilities
The analysis was part of a new, high-priority effort at RAND to examine federal budget policy in unprecedented detail. The RAND Budget Model Initiative aims to better predict how policy proposals will affect the American middle class. Researchers can now track how federal spending ripples through individual communities. They can map every provision, connection, and hidden loophole in the U.S. tax code.
Using this suite of new tools, researchers have analyzed earlier proposals to extend federal retirement accounts to more workers. They've looked at the likely impact of changes to the tax code on both corporate balance sheets and family budgets. And they've shown what it would take to reduce the burden of the federal debt and save taxpayers trillions of dollars in future interest payments.
"We've accumulated this debt over the last 50-plus years," Price said. "It's going to take us 30-plus years to get out of it. Steps like these proposed retirement accounts, where you shift costs and take advantage of the market, are one way we could get there."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2026/trump-retirement-accounts-costs-and-savings.html
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to New York Post: NYC Doing Everything Possible to Ruin Its Chances for a Huge World Cup Windfall
NEW YORK, March 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 15, 2026, by Cities policy analyst Santiago Vidal Calvo to the New York Post:* * *
NYC Doing Everything Possible to Ruin Its Chances for a Huge World Cup Windfall
New York City is about to host the biggest sporting event on the planet - the 2026 FIFA World Cup final.
Over 1.2 million fans will flock to the tristate area expecting American greatness at its best, bringing $3.3 billion in economic activity and supporting 26,000 local jobs.
It's potentially a once-in-a-generation economic windfall ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, March 17 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on March 15, 2026, by Cities policy analyst Santiago Vidal Calvo to the New York Post: * * * NYC Doing Everything Possible to Ruin Its Chances for a Huge World Cup Windfall New York City is about to host the biggest sporting event on the planet - the 2026 FIFA World Cup final. Over 1.2 million fans will flock to the tristate area expecting American greatness at its best, bringing $3.3 billion in economic activity and supporting 26,000 local jobs. It's potentially a once-in-a-generation economic windfallfor the city.
But instead of rolling out the welcome mat, City Hall is doing everything possible to bury the Big Apple's hosting abilities.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the City Council won't temporarily loosen strict local rules on home-share rentals like Airbnb, limiting places for visitors to stay in Gotham -- and inviting New Jersey to eat New York's lunch.
Meanwhile, thousands of hotel rooms have disappeared from the tourist market in New York City, new hotel construction has slowed to a crawl, and the city's powerful hotel union is threatening a strike that could collide with the tournament.
New York attracts massive crowds under ordinary circumstances: Last year Gotham saw over 64 million visitors, 175,000 a day on average.
This summer will be different.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2026/03/15/opinion/nyc-doing-everything-possible-to-ruin-its-chances-for-a-huge-world-cup-windfall)
* * *
Santiago Vidal Calvo is a Cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/nyc-doing-everything-possible-to-ruin-its-chances-for-a-huge-world-cup-windfall
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Posts Commentary: Moscow Calculates Benefits of Gulf Conflict, Coming Short
WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Moscow Calculates Benefits of Gulf Conflict, Coming Short
Executive Summary:
* The ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf has not produced the benefits Moscow expected. Despite U.S. pressure on Russia to end its war against Ukraine having momentarily eased, Russia's battlefield momentum has waned amid mounting military, economic, and diplomatic constraints.
* Russia's domestic ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by Pavel K. Baev, senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Moscow Calculates Benefits of Gulf Conflict, Coming Short Executive Summary: * The ongoing conflict in the Persian Gulf has not produced the benefits Moscow expected. Despite U.S. pressure on Russia to end its war against Ukraine having momentarily eased, Russia's battlefield momentum has waned amid mounting military, economic, and diplomatic constraints. * Russia's domesticeconomic situation is deteriorating as war costs intensify. A growing budget deficit, weakening oil revenues due to Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure, disrupted sanctions-evasion supply chains, and declining investment are deepening stagnation and inflation risks.
* Diplomatic and geopolitical gains for Moscow remain limited despite global turmoil. Russia's influence in the Global South and organizations such as BRICS has proven weaker than expected, while energy market volatility undermines Moscow's strategic ambitions.
As the aerial conflict in the Persian Gulf moves into week three, assessments generally assume Russia is a key beneficiary. Persisting with inflexible demands in the peace talks with the United States and Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin had apparently assumed that some external shock would break the deadlock that hardened at the start of the year. The expected calamity has arrived, but neither the course of battle nor the correlation of political forces shaping the broader picture of the confrontation gives Russia a tangible new advantage. Pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to bring Moscow's war against Ukraine to an end has all but disappeared, but the pressure from the costs of Russia's war of attrition has grown heavier, despite some new loopholes in the sanctions regime (Riddle, March 5; Carnegie Politika, March 10).
After several meetings with the top brass in January, Putin has seemingly lost interest in executing the winter offensive, which yielded scant territorial gains at the cost of heavy casualties (Mediazona, March 13). Since mid-February, Ukrainian forces have staged a series of counterattacks. The proposition that Russia holds the strategic initiative, which Putin strongly promoted, has lost relevance (Meduza, February 28; The Insider, March 13). The volume of Russian drone/missile attacks on Ukrainian cities has also decreased. In contrast, the effectiveness of significantly more precise Ukrainian strikes, including on the Kremniy El microchip plant in Bryansk, has risen (Radio Svoboda, March 11). The Russian Foreign Ministry made a formal demarche to France and the United Kingdom regarding the use of Storm Shadow missiles in that strike, while jingoist commentators continue demanding retaliation (RBC, March 13; TopWar.ru, March 14).
Putin has given priority to Russia's crisis in state finances. The final figures on the scale of the 2025 deficit reached nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The provisional assessments for the first two months of 2026 indicated an even greater hole in the budget (The Moscow Times, March 13). Even mainstream economic experts in Russia now predict a bad combination of stagnation and high inflation, while some cautiously critical opinions dare to suggest that the model of channeling generous funding to the military-industrial complex is unsustainable (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, February 26; Izvestiya, March 10). Russian economists in exile produce even darker forecasts by scrutinizing the discrepancies in the increasingly censored official statistical data (Re: Russia, March 11).
The expectations in Moscow of extra revenues from the spike in oil prices are remarkably muted and further curtailed by calculations of various losses (Forbes.ru, March 11; MK.ru, March 13). For once, the opportunities to increase oil exports are blocked by a series of spectacular Ukrainian strikes on refineries and critical energy infrastructure (RBC, March 13; Meduza, March 14). The United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states were key hubs in supply chains that helped Russian industry circumvent sanctions, and the sharp interruption has caused cascading production chokes (The Bell; Forbes.ru, March 5). Potential investors from this region, whom Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of Direct Investment Fund and Putin's special envoy, cultivated for years, now have other concerns, so the severe shortage of investment in Russia's economy is set to deepen (The Moscow Times, March 13). The tourism industry, for which Dubai was a major destination, has reported significant losses, and recurrent alarm sirens in Sochi, triggered by Ukrainian drones, are scaring away domestic vacationers (Interfax, March 12; Sochi Bloknot, March 13).
These repercussions exceed all possible gains. The intensity of the budget crisis is not alleviated, and steps such as another small cut in the key rate by the Central Bank cannot make any difference (The Moscow Times, March 11; Vedomosti, March 13). This profound economic weakness undercuts Russian attempts to engage in diplomatic intrigues, and Putin's conversations with the leaders of Iran and the United Arab Emirates, as well as with Trump, have yielded no practical results (Meduza, March 10; President of Russia, March 11). Moscow has persistently tried to position itself as a champion of the "anti-colonial" struggle in the Global South and as a promoter of a new world order shaped by organizations such as BRICS rather than the Board of Peace inaugurated by Trump (Valdai Discussion Club, March 11)./[1] Pundits in Moscow now struggle to explain away the failure of BRICS to take any position on the U.S.-Israel conflict against Iran, which joined the organization in January 2024 (RIAC, March 11).
The efficiency of Russian diplomacy further is diminished by the apparent lack of coordination with the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has taken a cautious stance on the conflict with Iran (MK.ru, March 9). Beijing is spared the reputational losses that Moscow suffered from the collapse of the al-Assad regime in Syria, the U.S. operation terminating the Maduro rule in Venezuela, and a possible meltdown of the post-Castro regime in Cuba (Novaya Gazeta Europe, March 14). Steadily growing economic base and readiness to invest provide a solid foundation for the PRC's foreign policy. Russian experts, however, focus on the limitations of this policy in countering U.S. efforts to project military power (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, March 11). Beijing is vulnerable to regional strife that threatens its investments and is reluctant to resort to forceful measures to protect its interests. Still, it is hardly worth learning from Russia's experience in conflict manipulation (Carnegie Politika, March 5).
Moscow sticks to the view that the Iranian regime will withstand the U.S.-Israeli assault. It is worried, however, that this setback could make U.S. policy more hostile toward Russia's ambitions (Business Online, March 15). Volatility in global energy markets can boost Russia's export revenues, but it cannot restore its position as a major supplier and a key influencer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) cartel, because its reputation as an energy superpower is damaged beyond repair by the fallout from its war against Ukraine. The shift of international attention away from this deadlocked and destructive war does not open any new opportunities for Moscow to achieve its maximalist goals, while its capacity for sustaining hostilities is dwindling due to the exhaustion of economic and human resources. The talks on a peace deal are in limbo, but the imperative to end the disastrous war is not weakened--and may even gain new strength from the much-needed opening of new formats and channels.
[1] A loose political-economic grouping originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, the PRC, and South Africa.
* * *
Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/moscow-calculates-benefits-of-gulf-conflict-coming-short/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: For Years, Walz Has Been Priming Students to Become Activists
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 17 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by senior policy fellow Katherine Kersten:* * *
Debunking myths about the new federal education tax credit
In recent months, the nation's eyes have been on Minnesota, as chaos engulfed the Twin Cities during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement here.
Gov. Tim Walz urged protesters on, exhorting Minnesotans to "resist" and document "atrocities." As the mayhem escalated, ... Show Full Article GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, March 17 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by senior policy fellow Katherine Kersten: * * * Debunking myths about the new federal education tax credit In recent months, the nation's eyes have been on Minnesota, as chaos engulfed the Twin Cities during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement here. Gov. Tim Walz urged protesters on, exhorting Minnesotans to "resist" and document "atrocities." As the mayhem escalated,he declared himself "incredibly proud" of "the way that you've risen to meet this unbearable moment."
But media coverage has missed a bigger, more disturbing and far-reaching story. For years, Walz has made entrenching the "resistance" mindset in Minnesota's next generation a top priority. Starting in fall 2026, the extremist ideology that undergirds it will be embedded in every grade and subject in our state's roughly 500 public school districts and charter schools -- via academic standards, statute and teacher licensing and training.
We are already seeing the results in our streets.
The vehicle is the Minnesota Department of Education's comprehensive new K-12 "liberated" ethnic studies regime. This extremist pedagogy teaches that America is racist and oppressive and portrays opposition as a moral imperative. A new K-12 ethnic studies standard titled "Resistance" requires students to "organize with others to engage" in "resistance" to our nation's fundamental institutions.
The Walz administration and its legislative allies knowingly chose committed political activists to design and direct the new ethnic studies regime. Now these activists are among those organizing our state's young people to engage in "resistance" on Minneapolis and St. Paul streets.
One such group is Unidos MN, an "immigrant-led, BIPOC majority" organization that played a prominent role in drafting the Education Department's ethnic studies standards. On Jan. 20, Unidos MN called a news conference urging students to walk out of school to join an upcoming march, rally and "day of action" -- "no school, no work, no shopping." Minneapolis-based Target Corp. -- framed as complicit in immigration enforcement -- was a special focus. As one flyer warned, "Hilton. Enterprise. Target: We are coming for you."
Unidos MN -- which trains young people in community organizing -- is now promoting student walkouts and organizing guides with its news conference co-sponsor, the activist Sunrise Movement.
The Sunrise Movement's "Rise Up" guide, for example, exhorts students to engage in monthly disruptions of the learning environment and "mass non-cooperation." "We're here to win a political revolution," it proclaims. "This is your guide to start winning at your school right now."
Students, it asserts, have always "been key to bringing down dictators" and strikes are vital to "bring massive corporations to their knees."
The "Rise Up" guide lays out mass meeting templates with chants, slogans and "strike cards," and advises students to seize on "trigger moments" -- like the death of protester Renee Good -- to build outrage and recruit peers. It identifies roles to fill "if your action" might "involve interactions with law enforcement."
The long-term goal, the guide declares, is far larger than blocking immigration enforcement. It is to "prove our power so we can pick bigger fights." Next up is May Day 2026, when organizers plan to muster millions of students in America's streets to "disrupt through mass non-cooperation to halt the authoritarians' advance."
In fall 2026, Minnesota students will begin hearing the call to "resistance" in public school classrooms, starting in kindergarten. The Walz administration has turned to the University of Minnesota's Center for Race, Indigeneity, Disability, Gender & Sexuality Studies (RIDGS) to write new, taxpayer-funded K-12 ethnic studies lesson plans.
RIDGS -- which, like Unidos MN, played a central role on the Education Department's standards drafting committee -- is an amalgam of "oppression studies" departments that grew out of a student takeover of a University of Minnesota building in 1969. Its self-declared mission is "to challenge systems of power and inequality" and "imagine social transformation."
RIDGS' "resistance"-themed lesson plan for sixth-graders -- titled "Protest Art and the Movement for Black Life" -- is typical. Twelve-year-olds will study the Black Lives Matter movement's "13 guiding principles" and "the role of protest art in mediating power in the city," and "create their own protest art."
Seventh-graders will study a "sit-in" staged in San Francisco in 1977 by "disability rights activists" and learn how protesters elsewhere "stormed" federal buildings. Then they will discuss how they can "advocate against ableism, including plans of action."
Residents of other states may not be particularly alarmed by the Walz administration's campaign to radicalize our state's public schools. They may be tempted to roll their eyes and say, "I'm glad I don't live in Minnesota!"
But students in Los Angeles, Florida, Tennessee and elsewhere are following Minnesota students' lead in walking out of school to stage protests. The activist movement that Walz has unleashed in our state has national ambitions. Its adherents intend to disrupt education, make student defiance of legitimate authority the norm, and exploit vulnerable, easily manipulated young people to advance their own political agenda.
This article first appeared in The Minnesota Star Tribune (https://www.startribune.com/mn-k12-education-ethnic-studies-race-theory/601597702).
* * *
Katherine Kersten is a Senior Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/for-years-walz-has-been-priming-students-to-become-activists/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Iran's War Strategy - Don't Calibrate--Escalate
WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by Mona Yacoubian, director and senior adviser of the Middle East Program:* * *
Iran's War Strategy: Don't Calibrate--Escalate
Iran's aggressive retaliation against U.S. and Israeli strikes highlights Tehran's war strategy: eschewing calibrated retaliation for unbridled escalation. Iran aims to restore deterrence and ensure the Islamic Republic's place in the region's emerging order. Iran signaled its intent to widen and deepen the conflict from day one, and its unprecedented ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by Mona Yacoubian, director and senior adviser of the Middle East Program: * * * Iran's War Strategy: Don't Calibrate--Escalate Iran's aggressive retaliation against U.S. and Israeli strikes highlights Tehran's war strategy: eschewing calibrated retaliation for unbridled escalation. Iran aims to restore deterrence and ensure the Islamic Republic's place in the region's emerging order. Iran signaled its intent to widen and deepen the conflict from day one, and its unprecedentedapproach could spark multiple escalation scenarios with significant regional and global impacts.
By going big early, Iran appears to have absorbed the lessons from previous conflicts. Iran and Israel first crossed the Rubicon of open state-on-state conflict in 2024, with direct clashes in April and October. Then, the United States joined Israel in the June 2025 Twelve-Day War. These conflicts were marked by limited, tit-for-tat escalation, short durations, and a telegraphed and choreographed end. This time is different. Even before the outbreak of conflict, Tehran signaled that it would not repeat the Twelve-Day War. Threatened by regime change and determined to deter future attacks, Iran appears to have opted for unrestrained escalation.
Tehran's war plans include both horizontal escalation--widening the geographic scope of the war--and vertical escalation, ratcheting up the conflict through its choice of targets, tactics, and weapons. Given existential stakes--the U.S. and Israel's opening salvo killed the supreme leader and several senior officials--Tehran seeks to impose enormous costs on the region, the United States, and the global economy to establish deterrence and forestall future attacks by Israel or the United States. Iran's efforts to mine the crucial Strait of Hormuz--through which one-fifth of global oil trade passes--underscore Tehran's go-for-broke strategy, potentially strangling its own economic lifeline to choke the world's oil supply.
Iran's escalation strategy can be distilled into two key components: horizontal and vertical escalations. It forcefully pursued both types of escalation in the conflict's early days and continues to escalate vertically as the conflict enters its third week. Unpacking Iran's progression up these "escalation ladders" highlights both the speed and intensity of its escalation.
Horizontal Escalation: Expanding the War Across the Region
Less than 24 hours into the war, Iran expanded the geographic arena of conflict, hitting nine countries: Israel, five Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. By March 5, Iran had embroiled 14 nations, opening a second front in Lebanon and targeting countries as far afield as Cyprus and Azerbaijan. An Iranian ballistic missile triggered NATO air defenses in Turkey.
Iran's horizontal escalation over several hundred miles is unprecedented and underscores Tehran's strategy of igniting conflict across the region to sow widespread fear and to essentially render the Middle East a "no-go zone." In his first statement since coming to power, the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, threatened to "open other fronts" in the war, highlighting Tehran's intentions to spread the conflict further.
Vertical Escalation: Expanding Targets and Raising the Stakes
From its opening retaliation, Iran began its ascent up a vertical escalation ladder by expanding targets beyond U.S. and Israeli sites to hit Gulf civilian and transportation infrastructure. These civilian targets included apartment buildings, shopping areas and hotels, and--most critically--major air transportation hubs, including Dubai and Doha. One day later, Tehran progressed to striking Gulf energy infrastructure targets in Saudi Arabia and Qatar--signaling a further ratcheting of escalation. Provoking global energy market disruptions, Iran has deepened its campaign over the past two weeks, broadening energy targets to include oil tankers and ports, and effectively closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz. It has also hit data centers and threatened to go after the banking sector and U.S. tech firms--the foundation of evolving U.S.-Gulf economic ties.
Yet Iran's vertical escalation does not occur in a vacuum; it can be seen as a response to U.S. and Israeli strikes. It has at times adopted an "eye for an eye" approach. For example, after Iran accused the United States of hitting a desalination plant, Tehran responded by targeting a desalination plant in Bahrain the next day. The incidents mark a particularly acute jump in escalation given the region's dependence on desalination plants for drinking water, posing potentially disastrous humanitarian impacts if the trend continues.
Escalation dynamics certainly go two ways. The U.S. bombing of Kharg Island--Iran's key oil export terminal--marks a significant vertical escalation by the United States. Possibly in response to Iran's attempts to mine the Strait of Hormuz, the attack signals U.S. willingness to target the heart of Iranian oil production.
Mobilization of proxies marks another instance of Iran's vertical escalation. While Iran's use of proxies is not new, Hezbollah's March 2 decision to launch drones and rockets on Israel marked a distinct departure from its more recent posture. Hezbollah refrained from hitting Israel during the June 2025 Twelve-Day War. It had largely respected the fragile November 2024 ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, despite near-daily Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Hezbollah's March 2 intervention dramatically expanded the war, provoking a large-scale Israeli offensive that appears set to intensify over the coming days. While the Houthis, another important Iranian proxy, have not engaged in the conflict, Iran could yet seek to activate them.
Where the War Could Go Next
As the war with Iran enters its third week, various escalation scenarios are possible, with no off-ramps in sight:
* Straight-Line Escalation: This scenario would feature continued, if gradual escalation, marked by periods of stasis in the conflict. Both the U.S.-Israeli and Iranian sides would engage in a variety of escalation measures, expanding target selection, deploying new tactics, with the net effect of driving the conflict along an escalation trajectory. The conflict would continue to generate disruptive impacts across global markets and would also continue to imperil travel and business in the Middle East.
* Exponential Escalation: This scenario is marked by spiraling escalation that triggers new conflicts (e.g., Lebanon) or provokes unintended impacts (e.g., popular uprising) that then assume their own uncontrolled dynamics. The conflict in Lebanon offers a prime example. While a direct outgrowth of the war with Iran, the Lebanon war is on a separate trajectory that could lead to additional spinoff escalations. These range from widespread displacement leading to localized sectarian tensions to a potential civil war should the Lebanese government seek to disarm Hezbollah forcefully. Unintended consequences also loom large. Sporadic, small demonstrations ongoing in Shia-majority Bahrain could morph into a larger mass uprising similar to the 2011 widespread protests. This scenario would not only lead to sustained market disruption but could catalyze yet unknown second and third-order effects. For example, the Houthis' entry into the conflict could lead to the blocking of the Bab al-Mandab, the region's other strategic chokepoint, making for a "perfect storm" of energy disruption by ensnaring Red Sea navigation, alongside the Persian Gulf blockage.
* Asymmetric Escalation: A weakened Iran, largely deprived of its missile capabilities, would continue to wreak havoc via drone strikes. Iran's drone capabilities are likely to prove far more resilient and difficult, if not impossible, to completely neutralize. Relatively cheap and easy to manufacture, including in mobile manufacturing facilities, drones are the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) of this war--able to cause significant damage and disruption at a low cost. Not unlike IEDs in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, drones are devastatingly effective, especially against soft targets. Even a badly weakened Iran can escalate the conflict using these asymmetric weapons, especially in ways that disrupt global markets and shipping. This scenario would ensure regional instability continues, inhibiting efforts at stabilizing the region and global markets.
Staking Iran's Place in an Emerging Middle East Order
Perhaps counter-intuitively, Iran's escalation strategy also seeks to ensure Iran's place in an emerging Middle East order. Tehran has undoubtedly infuriated its Arab neighbors and deepened their distrust, but its aggressive response also serves as a reminder that Iran is part of the region. As many Gulf officials and analysts privately lament, Iran will forever be their neighbor. Currently living their "nightmare scenario," Gulf governments will need to find a way forward that acknowledges Iran's enduring regional presence. By hitting the Gulf where it hurts the most--their glittering infrastructure, burgeoning AI architecture, and wealth-producing energy production--Iran has imperiled the region's existential imperative of economic diversification and forced the Gulf to take Iran's equities into account--an extortion scheme on a grand scale, perhaps, but one that will bear close watching.
* * *
Mona Yacoubian is director and senior adviser of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/irans-war-strategy-dont-calibrate-escalate
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Investing in National Assets for Quantum Commercialization
WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by fellow Hideki Tomoshige and non-resident senior adviser Phillip Singerman, both of the Renewing American Innovation Program:* * *
Investing in National Assets for Quantum Commercialization
The United States stands at a pivotal moment in the global race to commercialize quantum information science and technology (QIST). While China and other competitors are rapidly scaling their capabilities through sustained investment, strategic talent, and industrial development, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on March 16, 2026, by fellow Hideki Tomoshige and non-resident senior adviser Phillip Singerman, both of the Renewing American Innovation Program: * * * Investing in National Assets for Quantum Commercialization The United States stands at a pivotal moment in the global race to commercialize quantum information science and technology (QIST). While China and other competitors are rapidly scaling their capabilities through sustained investment, strategic talent, and industrial development,the United States still retains unparalleled strengths--its world-leading research institutions, deep and broad talent base, robust private sector innovation ecosystem, and many years of accumulated scientific returns.
These advantages are built on decades of public investments and recent private sector investments. But as quantum technologies advance and as global competition continues to grow, the United States must continue to leverage its current advantages and invest more national resources in quantum, particularly in these five areas:
1. Foundational Research Funding and Infrastructure: The ability to generate groundbreaking results in quantum hinges on greater investment in research and infrastructure.
2. Development-Weighted Infrastructure: Shared-use quantum infrastructure is needed to bridge basic research and commercialization by enabling prototyping, tests, and small-batch manufacturing.
3. Workforce: Quantum is science-driven and heavily reliant on technical expertise. Approximately half of founders of quantum businesses hold a PhD. Building this expertise requires significant time and cost.
4. Translators to Communicate Between Suppliers and Users: There are many technical terms used in the quantum industry that management boards, business development teams, and policymakers do not understand. There is a need to translate technical language and develop practical narratives so that end-users can better understand the promise and policy issues involved in advancing quantum technologies.
5. Demand Signals: Because QIST involves high technical uncertainty and requires significant time for research and development (R&D), it requires stable, long-term government support to create demand signals for investors.
Preserving U.S. leadership in quantum will require renewed national commitment in all of these areas. This commentary examines why such investments are urgent and outlines the critical policy actions required to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of quantum innovation.
Investing in Foundational R&D
Sustained, flexible investment in both large-scale and small-scale quantum R&D--along with the infrastructure that supports it--is essential for advancing quantum technology, because breakthroughs arise not only from major research programs but also from small, agile teams using innovative approaches. This enables quantum companies not to chase excessive short-term views demanded by shareholders and follow long-term R&D roadmaps.
While commercialization of QIST has begun in some areas, many technical and engineering challenges across five application areas remain unsolved. QIST is still in a phase where successful science and research outcomes can define the future impact of the field.
In this regard, the United States is home to significant quantum research capabilities. Notably, the University of Colorado and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) host JILA, the leading knowledge base for precision timing and electrical measurement. Four Nobel laureates in physics have been involved in research at JILA, illustrating the fruits of long-term investments in the institute's ability to carry out quality research. Nobel Prizes typically involve a time lag of several years to decades between the publication of an achievement and the award.
Major leaps can also result from small-scale, speedy, and adaptable research teams who use established tools in unconventional ways and iterate through unanticipated steps to refine new processes or methods. For example, the 1980s quantum physics research that led to the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics began in John Clarke's lab at UC Berkeley with one professor, one postdoc, and one student. The innovation system in the United States also provides this flexibility. Maintaining funding for both large and small projects remains important to create pathways to further innovation.
Continued investments in such small-scale research infrastructure are therefore equally important. The National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee has highlighted the value of providing small funding amounts of $1 to $5 million in small- and mid-sized investments of $5 to $25 million to support this small-scale research infrastructure.
Research Infrastructure and Facilities
At the same time, key federal research facilities--especially those at NIST--need to be urgently upgraded to ensure future scientific productivity, safety, talent retention, and the nation's ability to compete in quantum research.
* The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Commerce under the Trump administration concluded that "outdated, dilapidated NIST facilities have long threatened the bureau's mission performance as well as its workers' health and safety. In FY 2026, NIST continues to face the challenge of addressing its facilities' significant issues while trying to play its crucial role in advancing technology."
* The FY 2025 budget summary from the Republican-led House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology states that deteriorating buildings and infrastructure threaten NIST's mission. The summary calls for increased funding for "Construction and Major Renovations," and "Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repairs."
* Many NIST facilities were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are now showing signs of age. Problems include aging heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical systems. Poor facility maintenance led to an incident in 2020, when a steam distribution line that exceeded its operational lifespan led to an explosion at NIST's headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. As the OIG points out, "Outdated facilities that may not conform to modern building codes create safety and health concerns for NIST's workforce and have led to millions of dollars in equipment damage . . . These issues not only contribute to productivity losses of up to 40 percent for NIST researchers, they also may impact NIST's ability to attract and retain research talent."
Restoration, modernization, and expansion of NIST facilities are essential to fulfilling its institutional mission of "advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life."
Similar backlogs have been noted for the research facilities of the Department of Defense (DOD).
* In May 2022, Representative Jim Langevin, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems, cited a more than $5.7 billion research infrastructure investment backlog.
* This challenge still persists in 2025. For example, as part of its FY 2025 Unfunded Requirements, the DOD requested additional funding from Congress for research, development, testing, and evaluation infrastructure. During deliberations on the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, the House Appropriations Committee also noted that it "remains concerned with funding for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization being repurposed throughout the fiscal year."
The details of how much funding is needed to modernize and expand NIST and DOD quantum-related research facilities are not publicly available.
Congress and federal agencies should evaluate the details of outdated quantum research infrastructure and fund construction of research facilities, if needed. Conducting quantum R&D at outdated facilities harms productivity at a time of rapidly increasing competition globally, particularly with China. A long-term investment framework dedicated to providing the infrastructure needs for scientific and technological research is critical.
Infrastructure's Role in Speeding up Commercialization
Testbeds and foundries are essential for accelerating the commercialization of quantum technologies, but because they are expensive to build and maintain, most quantum companies cannot create them on their own--so sustained federal investment is necessary to keep these facilities cutting edge and accessible.
Testbeds provide shared, lower-cost access to advanced testing and evaluation environments, allowing firms to iterate faster and more efficiently. Quantum technologies require cross-layer codesign. This means, for example, testing cryogenic platforms--which can take between six and twelve months--alongside radio frequency wiring, control electronics, detectors, and other subsystems together as an integrated platform. Testbeds would help speed up these processes.
Foundries can achieve the rapid production of valuable semiconductors, such as photonic-integrated chips, which can take three months to produce. A foundry is needed to establish a manufacturing line capable of producing such components more quickly. Such a facility also needs to collaborate with commercial foundries, from the prototyping of new chips to mass production.
While the United States has a number of cutting-edge quantum technology testbeds and foundries, maintaining their state-of-the-art capabilities will require predictable, sustained federal funding.
* * *
Table 1: Examples of Existing U.S. Foundries and Testbeds
* * *
New quantum prototyping facilities are emerging, but they require ongoing federal support. New national initiatives expected in the near term include a quantum prototyping facility, which would be supported by the DOD's Microelectronics Commons for Quantum and NIST's Quantum Technology Accelerator Hub. Establishing such a facility would strengthen quantum device manufacturing and prototyping capabilities in the United States.
Testbeds and foundries quickly become obsolete, so one-time funding is insufficient. Testbeds and foundries like these should be elevated to the status of national critical infrastructure and receive expanded federal budget support. One lesson from the 1980s National Science Foundation (NSF) Supercomputer Center Program is that hardware constantly faces rapid obsolescence and requires continual reevaluation and upgrades. In the rapidly evolving quantum field, a one-time capital investment for testbeds and foundries is not wise. A mechanism for long-term funding and appropriations for tech infrastructure is needed.
These facilities should be linked into a national, interoperable network. More broadly, as a national strategy, federally funded testbeds and foundries must be interconnected with R&D talent from the private sector, suppliers, end-users, capital, and others. In the long term, the United States should merge these isolated points of national capability into a connected network as a national priority. This would enable any regional startup to seamlessly access resources--such as testbeds and foundries--optimal for their specific technological stage. The federal government should start to discuss practical and effective ways to connect regional assets.
Collaboration with U.S. allies is important to reinforce leadership. The United States should work with its allies and partners to strengthen its leadership in quantum. For example, the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the DOD to jointly conduct research, development, testing, and evaluation of emerging technologies, including quantum technologies, with covered partner countries to meet emerging defense challenges. This initiative would allow the United States to collaborate closely with other countries and regions--including Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom--on quantum efforts.
Ecosystem Development and Public-Private Partnership Mechanisms
A strong and competitive U.S. quantum industry will require a network of regionally anchored ecosystems. This diversified, ecosystem-based approach provides a portfolio approach, allowing for flexibility for scientific advances and helping to cultivate diversity and resiliency in research, innovation, commercialization, investment, and talent development.
Indeed, quantum ecosystems are beginning to form organically across multiple regions, including California; the Mountain West region, represented by Colorado; and the Midwest region, represented by Illinois, Maryland, and New York. Within these regions, anchor institutions, suppliers, multiple end-users (e.g., defense, finance, pharmaceuticals, materials, and logistics), infrastructure, talent, and capital interact. Sustained federal and state support with a decades-long timescale, not a two- to three-year timeframe, for specialized activities within each of these regions will be essential to drive innovation, commercialization, workforce development, and broad economic impact.
A diverse user-base is also essential to strengthen the U.S. quantum ecosystem. Opening up national laboratories' cutting-edge facilities, knowledge, and talent to regional private companies and universities will increase the laboratories' end-user base and dramatically increase the opportunities for public-private collaboration. For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory currently operates the Quantum Computing User Program (QCUP), which provides researchers and partner institutions with access to quantum computers.
Another program, called the Quantum User Expansion for Science and Technology (QUEST) Program, provides selected researchers at U.S. domestic sites (universities, national laboratories, and in some cases corporate researchers) with access to resources for quantum R&D. While the CHIPS and Science Act authorized this nationwide program, it has yet to receive budget appropriations.
Further improvements in public-private partnership and technology transfer can build on NIST's April 2019 green paper, "Return on Investment Initiative for Unleashing American Innovation." The paper offers several key suggestions that are applicable to the quantum field:
* Streamlined Licensing: Government licensing processes for commercialization are currently lengthy and complex due to factors such as multilevel approval processes. A fast-tracked, straightforward pathway for quantum companies would be beneficial.
* Stronger IP Incentives: Ensuring strong IP protection for inventors is an impactful tool for incentivizing private investment in R&D. NIST's April 2019 green paper recommends improvements in how IP is handled and organized within federal research institutions. This includes copyright protection for software products of federal labs and an expanded protection period for proprietary information under a cooperative R&D agreement.
* Talent Mobility: Entrepreneurial leave, sabbaticals, and public-private talent-exchange programs would help foster a workforce fluent in technology transfer.
* Knowledge Commons for Best Practices: Agencies across government such as NIST, the Department of Energy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and NSF's Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships are accumulating best practices in technology transfer and IP. A knowledge commons could be established to help share and systematize these best practices. This clarity and transparency would enable any quantum organization to instantly reference and adopt partnership models that work for the quantum sector.
Conclusion
The United States stands at a decisive moment in the global competition to commercialize quantum information science and technology. Decades of public investment, world class research institutions, and the emergence of multiple high-performing regional innovation ecosystems have positioned the country as a leader in quantum. Yet this position is neither assured nor self sustaining. U.S. leadership will depend on deliberate choices--especially in how the federal government deploys its resources and organizes its role.
A comprehensive national commitment is required. This includes sustained investment in foundational research; modernization and expansion of critical research infrastructure; development-weighted facilities that accelerate prototyping and manufacturing; cultivation of a diverse and highly skilled quantum workforce; and mechanisms that strengthen translation between researchers, suppliers, end-users, and policymakers. But supply-side support alone is insufficient. Quantum commercialization requires patient capital and long development timelines--conditions that stable, credible demand signals from the federal government can foster.
By acting simultaneously as an R&D investor, ecosystem enabler, and early demand creator, the U.S. government can help ensure that breakthroughs move beyond the laboratory and into operational systems, competitive firms, and resilient supply chains. The economic, scientific, and national security benefits will accrue only if today's advantages are matched with long-term commitment.
CSIS's Renewing American Innovation program is undertaking a review of the U.S. Quantum Opportunity, as requested by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and in cooperation with the Quantum Economic Development Consortium.
* * *
Hideki Tomoshige is a fellow with Renewing American Innovation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Phillip Singerman is a senior adviser (non-resident) with Renewing American Innovation at CSIS.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/investing-national-assets-quantum-commercialization
[Category: ThinkTank]
AFPI Statement on Governor Beshear's Veto of Education Freedom in Kentucky
WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 16, 2026:* * *
AFPI Statement on Governor Beshear's Veto of Education Freedom in Kentucky
Today, Erika Donalds, Chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement following the veto by Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky's legislation (House Bill 1) that would permit participation in the new federal tax credit scholarship created in the Working Families Tax Cut Act.
"The America First Policy Institute is disappointed by this dismissal of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 17 -- The America First Policy Institute issued the following statement on March 16, 2026: * * * AFPI Statement on Governor Beshear's Veto of Education Freedom in Kentucky Today, Erika Donalds, Chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), issued the following statement following the veto by Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky's legislation (House Bill 1) that would permit participation in the new federal tax credit scholarship created in the Working Families Tax Cut Act. "The America First Policy Institute is disappointed by this dismissal ofparents' desires for their children, and once again, Kentucky families are being told education opportunity does not belong to them. The Education Freedom Tax Credit in no way threatens public schools; it simply allows private donations to support greater access for students needing a better fit. Access to the Tax Credit puts parents firmly in the driver's seat of their children's education.
House Bill 1, which included precise steps to access the tax credit, passed the Kentucky legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. AFPI is grateful for their effort this session and remains confident students will gain access to this program, regardless of the roadblocks."
Starting in 2027, individuals can claim up to $1,700 in dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) that award scholarships to K-12 children. But SGOs can only receive donations in states that formally opt in. Codifying Kentucky's participation will ensure a strong and lasting tool for families seeking the best educational outcomes for their students.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/afpi-statement-on-governor-beshears-veto-of-education-freedom-in-kentucky
[Category: ThinkTank]