The U.S. faces hurdles in conducting “battle damage assessments” of its strikes against key targets in Iran, raising questions about whether the Islamic republic’s military infrastructure has been destroyed permanently or whether Tehran retains the capacity to rebuild it after the current conflict ends.

U.S. and Israeli strikes over the past four weeks have undoubtedly devastated Iran’s navy, its ballistic missile capabilities, its drone production facilities and other assets, but specialists note key distinctions between saying a particular site has been “destroyed” or merely “damaged.” Determining which definition applies in each case is difficult.

That distinction came to the forefront after Operation Midnight Hammer in June, the U.S. mission that hit three key Iranian nuclear sites. Mr. Trump repeatedly said Iran’s nuclear program had been fully “obliterated” by those strikes. The administration has made clear in recent days that removing stockpiles of enriched uranium from Iran should be part of any peace deal between the two sides, reflecting a tacit acknowledgment that key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are still in play.

On the fringes of the Iran war, a lone British destroyer arrived off the coast of Cyprus this week to help defend the drone-struck, strategic island in the eastern Mediterranean. The belated arrival of HMS Dragon, which will join a European task group, is unlikely to reassure a British public appalled that their famed Royal Navy no longer rules the waves.

The lack of naval capability holds worrisome ramifications for Britain’s potential role in a multinational naval coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically vital Gulf waterway that Iran has effectively blockaded since the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on the Islamic republic nearly a month ago.

Britain’s inability or unwillingness to directly assist that mission could add to the derision that Mr. Trump sometimes shows toward his British counterpart, Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The decline of the British Royal Navy, analysts say, has its roots in the post-Cold War peace dividend, when London cut back on its military spending.

The annual report on global threats released this month by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) includes faulty assessments asserting the Chinese military does not plan an assault on Taiwan by 2027, according to China experts. The report states China this year “probably” will move ahead with setting the conditions for annexing Taiwan “short of conflict.”

The section of the report called “China-Taiwan” was drafted by David Shullman, the national intelligence officer for China on the DNI National Intelligence Council, former officials said. Mr. Shullman, a former CIA analyst, is a holdover from the Biden administration. Federal Election Commission records show that in September 2024, while he was a scholar at the Atlantic Council, Mr. Schullman donated $500 to Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz digs into the situation, writing that allowing Mr. Shullman to continue on at the National Intelligence Council as the seniormost intelligence analyst for China is raising questions about the judgment of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in overseeing the intelligence community and appointing those who minimize threats.

This summer, 16 North American cities will host millions of World Cup attendees. “It’s imperative that the U.S. has the right systems in place to safeguard the public,” writes former acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad F. Wolf. “Although counter-drone technology exists, the key issue is whether policymakers will act quickly enough to have them in place.

“As we have seen in recent conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, low-cost, commercially available drones (especially drone swarms) are now capable of precise navigation, autonomous flight and long-range payload delivery,” Mr. Wolf writes in an op-ed for The Times. 

“They are inexpensive, accessible and proliferating at a pace that outstrips our domestic defenses,” he writes, “Because of this, they dramatically increase the risk to soft targets such as an 80,000-seat stadium, an energy grid or a city’s water supply.”

Peace has “never been easy or automatic,” writes former European Commissioner Jan Figel. “It requires responsibility, shared interests and perseverance from political leaders and societies alike. The war in Ukraine is a tragedy that has already cost countless lives and immense suffering.

“Yet history shows that even the most bitter conflicts can eventually give way to reconciliation and cooperation,” Mr. Figel writes in an op-ed for The Times. “Innovation in politics does not always mean inventing something entirely new. Sometimes it means rediscovering successful ideas from the past and adapting them to new circumstances.

“Europe’s postwar experience demonstrates that former adversaries can become partners,” he writes. “If that lesson is remembered today, then the search for peace in Ukraine may yet open the door to a renewed architecture of stability and cooperation across the entire continent.”

• March 27 — How Ukraine’s Drones and Russia’s Reconnaissance Fit Into the Iran War, Atlantic Council

• March 30 — China’s Economic Slowdown: Risks, Realities and Strategic Implications, Hudson Institute

• March 30 — New Eyes on North Korea: Emerging Scholar Perspectives, Stimson Center

• March 31 — U.S. Navy Fighting Instructions with the Chief of Naval Operations, Center for Strategic & International Studies 

• April 1 — Regional Shockwaves: Long-Term Implications of the U.S.-Israel-Iran War, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• April 1 — How is the U.S.-Israel War on Iran Impacting Energy and the Global Economy? Chatham House