عرب و اسلام سیاسی

In responding to a spike in Israeli-Palestinian incitement, Washington should encourage constructive suggestions and focus on the worst cases.

Hizballah's response to military action against Iran could be shaped by rational cost-benefit analysis, a perceived spiritual obligation to defend its Shiite patron in Tehran, or both.

Turkey's Syria policy seems to be mirroring its Libya strategy: speaking out against a tyrant, gathering international support for political action against him, but staying in the background when it comes to military action.

Providing arms and other materiel to the FSA stands a far better chance of success than waiting for a silver bullet.

Barring unexpected developments, even optimistic observers see the current Israeli-Palestinian deadlock persisting at least until after this year's U.S. elections. The key actors are too focused on other challenges, too skeptical of each other's intentions, and too limited by multiple constraints to engage in the kind of decisionmaking a peace

For reasons of morality, and in the interest of containing the violence in Syria, the international community must accelerate Assad's departure.

Iran's upcoming parliamentary elections, while vigorously contested, offer no hope for improving U.S.-Iranian relations.

The movement is facing its most serious rift ever, severely divided on its future course and the identity of its post-Syria sponsors.

Although some examples suggest rational decisionmaking by Tehran, other Iranian actions seem unencumbered by cost-benefit considerations.