U.S. Policy

Instead of allowing persistent bilateral acrimony or domestic politics to delay a sensitive issue, both governments should approach the MOU negotiations as a function of Israel's military and diplomatic needs in a new regional landscape.

The assertion that such an effort would require up to 30,000 U.S. troops, and that it could risk a direct confrontation with Russia, requires a much closer look.

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.