U.S. Policy

The nuclear deal can't be defeated, but it can be toughened with smart bipartisan action.

Only firm demands for a better deal will force the president to confront an unpalatable choice: does he prefer to improve the agreement or watch it fail?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg -- who frequently interviews President Obama on Middle East issues -- poses Robert Satloff's ten provocative questions on the Iran deal and promises to get answers.

As the Obama administration searches for ways to maintain deterrence in the Persian Gulf, this biannual military exercise represents a high-reward, low-risk option.

In a recent compilation, two Institute fellows shared their views on the situation in Iraq. Read the full set of remarks on the Musings on Iraq website. Michael Knights Speaking just about Iraq, which is clearly only one segment of the broader war, any assessment of the current level of

There are several potential reasons why the Obama administration is still insisting that the nuclear deal is perfect as is, and most of them are deeply problematic.

Because a 'no' vote on the Iran deal would have little practical impact until next year, lawmakers have time to work with the president on making reasonable fixes to the agreement even if they disapprove it in the short term.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not necessarily be a deal breaker; in fact, it could give the administration time to improve the agreement or implement other policy measures that more effectively secure U.S. interests.

While the administration's statements are largely framed as realistic optimism about containing the nuclear program, some allies may worry that its comments on improving U.S.-Iranian relations are too aspirational.