A New EdgeTheory Assessment on how Iran's allies supported the effort to maintain pressure on the global energy supply from within Iraq.

Iran's allies supported the effort to maintain pressure on the global energy supply from within Iraq. Likely Iran-backed actors, whether the Houthis or Iran-backed Iraqi militias, conducted a drone attack damaging three pumping stations along Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline on 11 September, prompting the pipeline's temporary closure. Iraqi media narratives using language evoking anger and fear spiked on 12 September, a day after the East-West pipeline attack.

What You'll Learn

• Iran's direct confrontation with US military vessels is a significant escalation and shows the importance the regime places on retaining control of the Hormuz Strait.
• Iran directly supported the Houthi Movement's territorial gains along Yemen's Red Sea coast near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait in September, likely to compensate for diminishing influence over Hormuz.
• The timing of the attack on the East-West pipeline, a key oil transit route that functions as an overland alternative to Hormuz, suggests it may have been coordinated to coincide with Houthi territorial gains surrounding the Bab Al-Mandab Strait.
• Likely Iran-backed militias have conducted numerous strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure from within Iraq during the current conflict.
• Iran is also contending with intensifying US economic pressure.

From Iran's perspective, increasing the Houthis' ability to threaten the Bab Al-Mandab allows Iran to maintain pressure on the global energy supply even as the US alleviates some of that pressure by revitalizing Hormuz Strait transit.

Download the report

A New EdgeTheory Assessment on how foreign state, state-aligned, and other influential actors characterized the Trump–Xi summit, the narratives used to interpret its outcomes, and differences between foreign-facing and Chinese domestic messaging.

The Trump–Xi summit generated competing foreign narratives about its significance for U.S.–China relations and the broader international order. This brief examines how foreign state, state-aligned, and other influential actors characterized the summit, the narratives used to interpret its outcomes, and differences between foreign-facing and Chinese domestic messaging. Analysis also considers which themes generated the strongest emotional and narrative response to identify how the summit was leveraged beyond its immediate diplomatic outcomes.

What You'll Learn

• China-aligned actors moved beyond arguing that tariffs, sanctions, and technology restrictions failed to weaken Beijing. They claimed these measures accelerated Chinese self-reliance in manufacturing, technology, supply chains, and critical minerals.
• China-aligned actors connected the meeting to BRICS and Global South narratives depicting Western predominance as eroding. In this framing, the summit’s importance lies less in individual agreements than in its symbolic value: Washington engaging Beijing as a strategic peer becomes evidence for a wider transition toward distributed global power.
• Fear dominated the summit’s emotional profile and peaked alongside heightened discussion of trade, Taiwan, and the risk of war on September 24, indicating that engagement was strongest when the summit was framed around its implications for future economic and security competition rather than diplomacy itself.
• The key narrative shift is therefore from “China is stronger” to “U.S. policy helped make China stronger.”
• Chinese official messaging directed toward domestic audiences emphasized specific deliverables and material benefits rather than the broader power-transition narratives prevalent among China-aligned foreign actors.

The Trump–Xi summit became a contested symbol of the evolving U.S.–China relationship. Taken together, the narratives suggest that the summit’s information significance derived less from what was agreed than from competing efforts to define what renewed U.S.–China engagement signifies about power, leverage, and the future international order.

Download the report

A New EdgeTheory Assessment on how Iranian-, Russian-, and other aligned actors are using attacks on energy infrastructure and commercial shipping across the Gulf and Red Sea to shape perceptions of U.S. power and policy.

Attacks on energy infrastructure and commercial shipping across the Gulf and Red Sea are creating both physical disruption and an increasingly contested information environment. This assessment employed EdgeTheory's EdgeWatch and EdgeRunner workflows to establish the ground truth of reported infrastructure attacks in the Gulf and Red Sea region, assess the narratives surrounding their economic and geopolitical implications, and identify emerging actors and networks advancing potentially misleading or malign narratives against the United States.

What You'll Learn

• Attacks on Gulf and Red Sea energy infrastructure and commercial shipping have escalated, but reporting frequently overstates their scale and certainty.
• The primary information vulnerability is the gap between verified attack effects and unresolved attribution.
• The strongest malign narrative is not simply that the United States is weak, but that it is simultaneously responsible for the crisis and incapable of controlling it.
• Economic narratives provide the clearest bridge between a distant regional conflict and U.S. domestic audiences.
• Cross-network amplification broadens the narrative beyond Iranian information channels.

The information impact of the Gulf infrastructure attacks is being driven less by wholesale fabrication than by the strategic exploitation of real but incompletely understood events. The resulting narratives are particularly effective because contradictory developments can reinforce the same broader message: U.S. escalation is portrayed as causing instability, while U.S. restraint is portrayed as evidence of weakness.

Download the report