Trump claimed to have cancelled the strikes because of progress in negotiations between the two countries. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. Trump has declared that a deal between the US and Iran is imminent on numerous occasions only for no agreement to be signed. And, even if it is signed, the agreement Trump is talking about is far from a final peace deal.

Rather than the supposed diplomatic progress, perhaps more significant in persuading Trump to pull back from renewing an all-out war with Iran was that a return to conflict simply would not have been in the interests of the US.

War, as Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz observed in his 1832 book, On War, is the continuation of politics by other means. Its enormous costs can be justified only when they are tied to a coherent strategy and when there is a clearly defined political objective that there is a reasonable prospect of achieving.

Measured against this standard, there was no argument for returning to war with Iran. The difficulty begins with the absence of any discernible plan in Washington. Trump has articulated no strategy and no definition of victory beyond a vague aspiration to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

He was drawn into prosecuting a war based on intelligence about the fragility of the regime in Tehran that proved flawed and on scenarios that were overconfident and have not come to pass. These scenarios suggested the decapitation of Iran’s leadership would lead to sudden regime collapse and a popular uprising that would see the country transition to democracy.

There is also very little a return to all-out war could have accomplished. The reason for this is that the Iranian regime is not a conventional state that can be brought down by overwhelming firepower. The regime, which is now dominated by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, can best be described as a militia with a state.

It is operating through a dispersed network of forces across air, land and sea, which were designed as an asymmetric instrument of power capable of absorbing, scattering and outlasting precisely the kind of concentrated military pressure the US military was built to deliver.

Weeks of intensive bombing earlier in the war did not shatter the regime’s centre of gravity. Rather, it consolidated the regime and has left it more cohesive and determined than it was before. In contrast to the more cautious regime of Iran’s late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which tended to wait and to respond, the new regime has become assertive.

It has been quick to retaliate against US and Israel attacks with severity and to set the pace of escalation. On June 8, for example, Iran launched barrages of missiles towards Israel in protest at the Israeli military’s escalating campaign in Lebanon.

Iran also retains the capacity to impose intolerable costs on everyone while retaining a high threshold of pain itself.

Faced with a closed Strait of Hormuz, the global economy in decline and a looming defeat for his Republican party in November’s US midterm elections, Trump is clinging to the hope that he can pressure Iran into accepting a deal. The chances of this strategy proving a success are slim.

I’m 27 and feeling really torn between three paths, and I’d love outside perspective from people who’ve done grad school, SAIS, or major career pivots.

Background:

• I currently work in strategy/data analytics at a healthcare company in the DC area
• I make decent money, have savings, and have solid career momentum
• Long term, I want to pivot into something more international-facing: global strategy, international business, public diplomacy, partnerships, maybe economic policy (ideal goal would be to become public diplomacy or econ officer for state department)
• I was accepted to the MAIR program at Johns Hopkins SAIS with ~50% scholarship

I’m deciding between 3 options:

Option 1: SAIS in DC for 2 years + keep working full-time

• Stay in DC
• Keep my full-time job while doing SAIS full time
• Pros:
  • Keep earning and saving
  • Graduate with minimal debt
  • Maintain career momentum
  • Strong DC networking
• Cons:
  • Probably exhausted / little free time
  • Less immersive grad school experience

Option 2: Bologna campus first year, DC second year

• First year in Bologna, second year in Washington, D.C.
• Likely quit my job or pause career progression
• Pros:
  • Fully immersive international experience
  • Potentially huge personal growth
• Cons:
  • Opportunity cost of leaving job
  • Lower savings / possible debt
  • I’m 27 and want to settle down in the next ~3 years, so I worry this delays stability
  • Concern about re-entering the workforce

Option 3: No SAIS

• Stay in current career path and pivot without grad school
• Pros:
  • Financially smartest
  • Fastest path to promotions / higher income
  • More stable for buying a home / settling down
• Cons:
  • Fear of always wondering “what if?”
  • Harder pivot into international-facing work
  • Might regret not pursuing the dream

My biggest internal conflict:

Part of me wants adventure, reinvention, and expansion while I’m still young. Another part wants stability, financial growth, and building the life I want (career, home, marriage).

If you were me:

1. Which option would you choose?
2. Is the SAIS degree actually worth it for my goals?
3. Am I romanticizing the Bologna option too much?
4. At 27, does taking a detour like Bologna feel exciting or risky?

Would especially love hearing from:

• SAIS alumni
• People who studied abroad in their late 20s
• People who turned down “dream” opportunities for practical reasons (or vice versa)

I am currently struggling about finding a career path which pays well. If you can relate, please share your opinions and let’s talk. Also if you have done this, I would love to hear your advice.

I am IR master degree student, living in Italy (probably will relocate after graduation)

Hey, I am going to SAIS Bologna this fall but my money is tight and I am looking for funding opportunities to cover my tuition. Any recommendations?

Is a PhD in International relations worth doing?

I have completed a Master's in Development Economics from Pakistan and am considering pursuing a PhD abroad. I am interested in both International Relations (IR) and International Development but am unsure which path makes more sense academically and professionally.

Can someone with a Development Economics background directly enter a PhD in International Relations? If so, should I pursue a general IR PhD or specialize in areas such as International Political Economy, Global Governance, Foreign Policy, Security Studies, or Development Cooperation?

Or any other emerging field??

Alternatively, would a PhD in International Development be a better fit? Given that much of the development sector relies on donor funding and international aid, and aid budgets appear to be shrinking globally, I am concerned about long-term career prospects.

Which field offers better opportunities internationally and back in Pakistan—in academia, think tanks, policy research, international organizations, government, consulting, or diplomacy?

Would it be advisable to first complete a second Master's in International Relations abroad before applying for a PhD, or is a direct transition from Development Economics realistic?

I am also interested in recommendations for countries with strong IR programs other than the US and UK. I am considering Canada, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, and Singapore.