سیاست آمریکا

Mismatching objectives and means has repeatedly produced failure and undermined consensus, but Washington no longer has the luxury of bad statecraft on pressing issues like Iran’s nuclear program.

The Institute’s managing director testified before a Senate panel on U.S. policy post-Assad, explaining how patience, pragmatism, and a willingness to lead can help Washington avoid its past vacillation between excessive intervention and exasperated neglect in the Middle East.

Despite its risks for regional stability and U.S. policy, the president’s Gaza proposal has put this issue at the top of the priority list.

Cutting aid programs is not inherently wrong—but making those cuts before assessing their specific impact on regional allies and American lives could be disastrous for U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Important strategic changes abound in the region, but policymakers should take care not to underestimate the persistence of old challenges or the potential emergence of new threats.

Netanyahu likely wanted to start off on a good foot with Trump—not just out of fear, but because Israel has its eyes on a much wider allied agenda in the region.

The incoming U.S. administration has no intention of strong-arming Israel into working with such a problematic organization, so officials should focus on pressing other UN agencies to take on its job in Gaza—or risk cuts to their own funding.

The delegation’s findings on key political and security issues will have a major impact on future U.S. engagement with Syria’s new leaders, including the decision on whether or not to remove sanctions.

In addition to assuaging public fears about the agreement, officials will need to reach a shared understanding with Washington about how to enforce its terms and respond to Hezbollah violations.