All Policy Analysis by James Jeffrey

A traditional military operation is eluding serious attention for many reasons, but none hold up against the devastation experienced in Syria and Iraq.

The solidarity expressed at the latest regional gathering of senior U.S., European, and Middle Eastern defense officials, diplomats, journalists, and analysts was encouraging, though some aspects of Washington's policies in Syria and elsewhere still need clarification.

Two former U.S. ambassadors explain why a more aggressive campaign against ISIS is necessary to preserving a unified, pro-American Iraq.

Without stronger American military efforts to hurt ISIS and help the rebels, the Vienna summit has little chance of preventing Moscow from taking the driver's seat in Syria.

The province that Putin's jets buzzed this weekend holds special demographic and historical significance, raising questions about the incident's potential significance as a warning to Ankara.

The president dismissed his critics on Syria for offering half-baked policy advice, but maybe the real problem is in the White House.

U.S. policy in Syria is failing because the Obama administration is prioritizing the urgent (rolling back ISIS) over the truly important (preventing Iran and Russia from rearranging Middle East security to their benefit).

Although the president's speech correctly diagnosed the latest grave challenges to the international order, he has yet to acknowledge that belligerent actors will not respond to U.S. diplomatic signals unless they are backed by U.S. military power.

A former U.S. Army commander and a distinguished diplomat discuss how the nuclear deal could compromise longstanding U.S. interests in the Middle East if Washington does not do a better job of countering Iran's destabilizing ambitions.

If the president's bet on Iran's transformation does not prove to be immediately and demonstrably right, his larger project could suffer the same fate as Bush's in the hands of his successor.

As bold reform efforts and political deadlines roil Baghdad and Erbil, Washington should help resolve the crises as soon as possible so that Iraq can turn back to the urgent fight against ISIS.

If realist opponents of the Iran agreement insist that the JCPOA must go, they will need to explain in detail how the limited alternatives at Washington's disposal are worth the profound risks of killing the current deal.

Since the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), members of The Washington Institute’s Iran Study Group have met to assess the agreement’s relationship to the parameters outlined in the study group’s June 24 policy statement. Members of the study group have also benefited from several hours of

The following item appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Washington Post on July 21 . As a critic of many administration decisions on Iran, I have sympathy for Eric Edelman's and Ray Takeyh's problems with the Iran deal but disagree with their suggested response: Congress kills

The final agreement lies somewhere in between the April 2 interim parameters and Khamenei's maximalist demands, but whether Iran will adhere to the seemingly favorable terms is another question.