Where it stands: The State Department has been rocked by concerns that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo furthered Trump's political goals to pressure Ukraine, a U.S. ally, by withholding a White House meeting and vital security funds.

• Pompeo adviser Michael McKinley, whose career ambassador rank is equivalent to that of a general in the armed forces, resigned last week, attributing his departure to the politically motivated recall and reputational smearing of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
• George Kent, the senior official responsible for Ukraine policy in Washington, testified that he was sidelined by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and special Envoy Kurt Volker.
• As both officials have explained, these politicized decisions undercut policy objectives, engendering new forms of corruption rather than rooting it out.

The impact: The State Department has begun to hollow out. Applications to join the Foreign Service dropped by 22% in the first two years of the Trump administration, diminishing the talent pool the department will depend on years down the line.

Between the lines: It's especially difficult for department morale that many problems come from the top.

• Pompeo told House committees that to protect personnel the State Department would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. But the treatment of Yovanovitch and the testimony of other officials make clear that their interests were not the highest priority.
• Many State Department officials still recall Pompeo's attacks on diplomatic personnel during the Benghazi hearings (in the name of congressional oversight, ironically).

The bottom line: Undermining the work of the State Department — which is America’s global representative — risks reducing American standing and influence in an ever more complex and chaotic world.

Joel Rubin is the president of the Washington Strategy Group and a former deputy assistant secretary of state.

Between the lines: The inquiry encompasses a range of sensitive and consequential issues:

• Balance of powers: The increasing centralization of foreign policy in the hands of the executive branch — to the exclusion of Congress — has raised concerns about the ability of the American people to influence foreign policy decisions. The more the Trump administration ignores Congressional mandates, such as military aid to Ukraine and subpoena requests, the further U.S. governance drifts from its Constitutional foundations.
• Conduct of diplomacy: Administration officials may have been pursuing off-the-books, back-channel initiatives unauthorized by Congress — effectively sidelining consensus-driven foreign policy. If top political appointees or non-governmental envoys such as Rudy Giuliani advanced personal political agendas, that would compound the harm to American credibility abroad.
• Russia deterrence: Withholding American military aid to Ukraine weakens its national defense and undercuts a shared goal of the U.S. and its Western allies. It also sends a troubling signal to NATO — and Russia — about America's determination to stand up to Russia's physical aggression in Europe.
• Election security: Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could constitute solicitation of a foreign campaign contribution. Moreover, little has been done to strengthen U.S. cyber defenses, and Trump has continued to downplay concerns about foreign interference.

The bottom line: The Ukrainian issues under mounting scrutiny could be only the tip of an iceberg. If the Trump Administration blocks cooperation with the impeachment inquiry, it could end up exacerbating perceptions that private interests have been placed above national security — a potentially challenging position for a commander in chief seeking reelection.

Joel Rubin is the president of the Washington Strategy Group and a former deputy assistant secretary of state.

Between the lines: The prospect of a military strike raises a cascading series of risks.

• The U.S. has nearly 30,000 troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, plus another 14,000 in Afghanistan and more than 5,000 in Iraq (both of which border Iran). Those forces would need a protection plan and a strategy in place should they be engaged by Iranian proxies.
• There's no simple military solution to the challenges of Iran's nuclear program short of a massive invasion. But an attack could lend the program legitimacy by strengthening Iran's case for it as a needed deterrent.
• Military action could amplify ongoing regional conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Countering those escalations would require an even greater commitment of U.S. troops.
• Global oil flows could continue to suffer. With sanctions already keeping Iranian oil practically off the market, any loss to the Saudi supply makes for a greater hit. Spiking oil prices are likely, as is increased use of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.

The bottom line: The serious risks of a heightened military standoff with Iran call for a well-developed strategy from a White House not known for its orderly policymaking.

Joel Rubin is the president of the Washington Strategy Group and a former deputy assistant secretary of state.