السياسة العربية والإسلامية

If the United States strikes, it needs to choose targets and weapon systems based on a strategic plan that is well explained to the world.

With the transition plan forging ahead after recent turbulence, Egypt's focus has turned to the upcoming constitutional referendum, which will be followed by parliamentary and presidential elections that may favor emerging centrist movement al-Tayyar al-Hor.

Despite its longstanding reputation as a pro-extremist faction, Tunisia's governing an-Nahda party may finally be breaking with the radical fringe.

The war in Syria has exposed the group's true strategic interests, which it has sought to secure through heavy involvement in the fighting.

There is ample justification for intervention in Syria once U.S. strategic interests are factored into the equation, regardless of the chemical red line.

The regime's cadres have held together through two years of war, and they will likely continue doing so unless Washington and its allies present them with a stark choice: leave and live, or stay and die.

The United States has serious business to do with Turkey, all of which remains doable despite the troublesome verdicts against top military officials.

U.S. backsliding on redlines regarding Syrian chemical weapons only encourages the Assad regime to make choices that increase the likelihood of direct U.S. intervention.

Saudi Arabia has been one of the most important allies of the United States. But it has also staunchly supported opposition to reform and democracy in the Gulf, and now may offer aid to the Egyptian military that could dwarf what America provides. Should the United States continue to view