اسرائیل

The compiled series provides a timely country-by-country guidebook for engaging non-Islamist, pluralistically inclined actors in North Africa, the Gulf, and the Levant.

The usual answer is Truman, but it could just as easily be Stalin -- a bit of diplomatic history that offers lessons for Jerusalem today.

As tensions escalate across the border, the IDF is trying to win over old enemies.

For now, Palestinian officials will likely pursue half-measures rather than a true unity government, so Washington may find limited value in a formal statement against Hamas.

Had Walt and Mearsheimer not been so committed to indicting pro-Israel groups with responsibility for the failures of U.S. policy in the Middle East, they could have raised legitimate issues worth debating.

In a radical rethinking of the origins of U.S. Middle East policy, Robert Satloff suggests that two key ideas guiding Washington's actions in the region for the past three-quarters of a century were born in the bargain U.S. leaders made with Vichy French officers after Allied troops landed in North Africa during World War II.

To garner support for a return to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Washington needs to show that it will counter the Iranian threat in the region even as it coordinates tangible first moves by Saudi Arabia and the two parties.

Conflict with Israel might be inevitable, but the context has become more complicated than ever for both sides.

A lack of policy alternatives and the political risks associated with choosing one side over the other help explain the resilience of the beleaguered model.