U.S. Policy

As tumultuous as the region's recent struggles have been, they have also exposed opportunities to establish a more multilateral Middle Eastern security architecture via renewed U.S. leadership.

UN Security Council Resolutions 2170, 2249, and 2254 offer ample grounds for establishing a zone to protect refugees and counter the Islamic State, but shaping the international diplomatic response would be paramount given the legal gray areas inherent in such action.

For such zones to succeed, they must be backed with militarily enforced no-fly zones and a persuasive response to Moscow's inevitable small-scale violations and disinformation campaign.

Once again, Moscow has expressed agreement with the United States on the broad principles for easing the Syrian conflict and then acted without regard to those principles.

Kathy Gilsinan interviewed Andrew J. Tabler on what an Assad victory would mean for the war and the West. The full text of the article, including graphics, is available on the Atlantic website. Kathy Gilsinan: I wanted to start with what the significance of Aleppo has been to the Syrian

Washington lacks the voice and vocabulary to rhetorically challenge the group's theology, so it should focus on making better use of other potent tools that can actually stop jihadist goals from becoming a reality.

The situation in the Middle East is beginning to resemble the Balkans: either the Balkans in the early 1990s, before Washington woke up and played its role as security leader, or the Balkans before World War I, when no one woke up.

To ensure that Beijing's post-sanctions ambitions in the region do not include transferring dangerous nuclear and military technology to Iran, Washington and its allies need to set clear boundaries sooner rather than later.

Despite very different values and tactical preferences, Washington and Riyadh continue to share important strategic interests, and it would be the height of folly to throw them overboard because of misguided reactions to recent events.