Senior officials from Israel, the United States, and the broader Middle East convened last week in Washington for the Middle East-America Dialogue (MEAD) conference, focusing on ongoing challenges in Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. The discussions underscored a central theme: while ideal resolutions remain distant, steady progress through imperfect but actionable strategies is necessary over the next 28 months before the current U.S. administration departs.

Participants—including former generals, intelligence officials, diplomats, and politicians—highlighted three key arenas where incremental change could lay the groundwork for long-term stability. These included maintaining pressure on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, implementing a political plan for Gaza, and advancing a tripartite security arrangement in Lebanon.

Regarding Iran, officials noted that Israel’s recent military campaign and blockade have significantly degraded Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. Key nuclear facilities, centrifuges, and research centers have been damaged or destroyed, alongside the elimination of senior nuclear scientists. While Iran’s stockpiles of enriched material and underlying knowledge remain intact, rebuilding these capabilities is expected to be costly and time-consuming. Participants described Israeli and U.S. military cooperation as exceptionally integrated during the campaign, which began on the morning of February 28 to exploit tactical surprise.

The blockade complements the military operation by constricting Iran’s ability to replenish its missile and drone production, forcing the regime to choose between sustaining its economy or continuing military development. Conference attendees also revealed Israel’s role in encouraging the anti-regime protests that erupted in January in Tehran. Despite harsh regime crackdowns that resulted in thousands of casualties, demonstrators continued their efforts, signaling growing internal opposition. The prevailing view is that sustained pressure might eventually foster leadership change within Iran, but the window is limited. Iran’s leadership is believed to be betting on outlasting the Trump administration, which has 28 months left, banking on a potential policy shift under a future U.S. president.

Turning to Gaza, the MEAD conference emphasized patience and commitment to the 20-point plan spearheaded by former President Donald Trump. While acknowledging the plan’s challenges—such as Hamas’s continued armament, delayed deployment of an international stabilization force, and the Gaza administration’s current location in Cairo—participants agreed that alternative outcomes are far worse. The plan’s success hinges on deradicalization alongside physical reconstruction, requiring long-term efforts to remove extremist ideology from Gaza’s schools, mosques, and institutions. Regional partners with experience in combating Islamist extremism, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, are expected to be involved. Given Trump’s personal involvement in the initiative, the next two-plus years are viewed as crucial for translating commitments into concrete governance and security improvements.

In Lebanon, MEAD delegates urged cautious optimism regarding a fragile but potentially historic tripartite process. Hezbollah remains heavily armed, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have yet to fully assert control in southern regions formerly occupied by Israel. A phased approach is underway, involving LAF deployment and verified disarmament of Hezbollah in specific areas, coordinated with Israeli troop withdrawals. Challenges include establishing effective verification mechanisms, preventing Hezbollah’s rearmament, and managing mutual distrust between Israel and Lebanon—the former insisting on Hezbollah’s disarmament as a precondition for withdrawal, and the latter requiring Israeli redeployments to build public confidence in the new order.

Officials warned that continued Israeli strikes that weaken Hezbollah militarily could potentially bolster its political standing among southern Lebanon’s Shiite population if the Lebanese state does not simultaneously deliver improved security, reconstruction, and economic opportunities. The dialogue stressed that failure to pursue this fragile path risks returning to a cycle of conflict that would be more destructive for all parties.

The prevailing consensus at MEAD was that while none of the three focal areas—Iran, Gaza, Lebanon—offers a perfect solution, abandoning current efforts in favor of uncertain alternatives could prove far costlier. The participants underscored the necessity of sustained, patient but urgent action within the 28-month timeline before a potential shift in U.S. Middle East policy priorities.