U.S. Policy

The best approach for both governments is to internalize lessons from 2015 and enter a comprehensive, discreet discussion focusing on constructive ideas and realistic outcomes.

Proxy rocket attacks in Iraq require a clear response, otherwise the safety of U.S. troops and the prospect of nuclear negotiations will both be in doubt.

Tehran’s nuclear and regional activities are part of a single strategy that aims to paralyze stronger foes, so Washington’s policies for responding to each challenge should likewise overlap considerably.

Even as U.S. policymakers must stay focused on the Assad regime’s culpability, they also face a complex web of power dynamics in which Russia, Turkey, Iran, Israel, and other actors are attempting to secure their various interests.

Modest invest­ments of U.S. diplomatic capital, economic aid, and security assistance can help these three countries and advance American interests.

The new command shift, which is rooted in years of growing collaboration away from the limelight, promises to facilitate bilateral and regional security cooperation and burden sharing, while the IDF-EUCOM-CENTCOM experience sets the stage for the next frontier: U.S.-Israeli military dialogue on the China-Iran partnership.

Although the instinct to make dramatic changes is understandable and sometimes correct, certain elements of Trump policy provide good opportunities for furthering Arab-Israel engagement, pressuring Iran, and advancing other issues.

Veteran NGO practitioners with deep experience in the aid sector discuss how Washington can help fix flawed approaches to assisting civilians in these two conflict zones.

Many of the administration’s early Middle East security efforts will boil down to crisis management, but new frameworks like the Abraham Accords may provide opportunities to address longer-term problems.