Policy Analysis

Watch video or read a summary of a lively debate between Israeli lawmakers about how their government should address growing efforts to internationalize the peace process.

The nuclear deal and the negotiations leading up to it have been a significant source of factional confrontation inside Iran over the past few years, and this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

In the wake of terrorist incidents, societies and their political leaders must avoid the impulse to give in to hatred, focusing instead on reconciliation at the personal, community, and intercommunal levels.

Egypt and Israel are exploring more overt consultation beyond the quiet security sphere, where ties are closer than ever amid shared threats.

As rival militias continue to dominate Libya's political and security landscape and the Islamic State threatens to evolve into a different but no less potent problem, the West should consider stepping up its efforts to foster a unified and functional national government.

"Islamist" and "Islamic" may sound similar but the difference between them is huge -- and carries profound policy implications.

Islamism is not a form of the Muslim faith or an expression of Muslim piety; it is, rather, a political ideology that strives to derive legitimacy from Islam.

On June 7, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed controversial anti-terrorism legislation known in Russia as the "Yarovaya law," named after its leading co-author, prominent member of Putin's United Russia party Irina Yarovaya. The law is reminiscent of Soviet-era surveillance. It will also likely contribute to crippling the Russian economy. According

While recent battlefield successes against the group's Libyan stronghold are encouraging, the threat persists, and political dysfunction remains a significant obstacle to stabilizing the country.

The new report indicates that settlement growth is slowing and that most of it is occurring near the security barrier, but not having a declared policy in this regard may open Israel up to more internationalization drives.

The Islamic Republic's terror sponsorship has hardly abated since the nuclear deal was reached, giving the Obama administration another opportunity to reassess these menacing behaviors and hold Tehran accountable.

As the kingdom attempts to counter the Islamic State's narrative by consolidating a common identity for those most prone to radicalization, it is simultaneously alienating others.

Editor's Note: This is the first article in a two-part series. Next week, Prof. Mohammad Dajani presents the view that the region's challenges are primarily political rather than cultural. James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, recently claimed that the United States “can't fix” the Middle East region. Clapper is right

If Ankara wants to intervene against the Islamic State in Syria, block Kurdish advances, and defeat the PKK at home, it may decide to do whatever is necessary to placate Moscow, perhaps even cutting off support for certain anti-Assad rebel groups.

Moscow only agreed to the nuclear deal out of self-interest, and the JCPOA has allowed Russia to expand ties with Iran while positioning itself as a regional counterweight to the West.

Assess how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran, has affected various U.S. interests one year after its announcement on July 14, 2015.

Deeply entrenched interests are impeding reform in Iran, limiting the economy to only modest progress even with sanctions relief.

In addition to ideological concerns, the group can't afford to lose access to Syria's northern border, so it has responded to Turkish-backed rebel offensives there with multiple terrorist attacks.

Not enough is being done to convince Tehran that seeking nuclear weapons down the road will lead to forceful consequences, so the next administration will need to put forth a tougher declaratory policy on the issue while bolstering the deal's near-term benefits.

A former senior State Department advisor discusses the concrete steps Washington and other actors can take to improve conditions on the ground, setting the stage for future peacemaking even if more ambitious initiatives are not currently in the cards.