All Policy Analysis by James Jeffrey

Keeping U.S. troops in place is critical to our national security, but American interests don't require the large-scale, long-term ground force that many fear.

Today, Syria is the sole battlefield in the world where American, Russian, Turkish, Iranian, and Israeli military forces all operate, along with a kaleidoscope of proxy actors foreign and domestic. As the preeminent arena of strategic competition in the Middle East and a wellspring of potential Islamic State resurgence, Syria

Turkey’s decisive election results and shaky geopolitical situation could make it more amenable to addressing U.S. concerns about Russian weapons sales, Iranian adventurism, and other key security issues.

The feuding NATO allies have apparently agreed on a concrete roadmap for rolling back the Kurds, but broader strategic cooperation would require them to overcome tall political obstacles.

U.S. and Turkish officials have four main security and legal disputes to work out, and the geopolitical stakes are immense.

This time around, a total pullout could draw U.S. allies Israel, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia into confused combat against Assad’s alliance, without an American referee.

Two former policymakers discuss whether the longtime allies can move beyond tactical responses to their strategic challenges in the region.

By providing a clear and consistent roadmap for American interests in Iraq and future international support, Washington can help Baghdad steer the country in the right direction after next month's elections.

President Trump still seems intent on withdrawing from the deal, but his calculus could change given the lack of diplomatic consensus in Europe and the chemical weapons showdown in Syria.

By moving to an airpower-focused approach, Washington could avoid an unending stabilization mission, calm tensions with Turkey, and help allies with the bigger goal of countering Iran and Russia.