U.S. Policy

The means-ends mismatch in Washington's approach to ISIL is a function of several problems, including inadequate commitment of resources, the jihadist group's resilience, the weakness of America's regional partners, and the incoherence of current U.S. strategy.

Washington has several options beyond a major ground commitment, including more drones and special forces in Iraq, a true effort to arm and organize the Syrian opposition, and a willingness to recognize longer-term regional threats posed by al-Qaeda affiliates and Iran.

Without more decisive steps and a greater commitment of forces, the United States cannot expect to achieve its goals against the Islamic State.

Few issues have so polarized U.S. and Israeli leaders as the prospective accord with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Between Obama’s “historic opportunity” and Netanyahu’s “historic mistake” lie differing threat perceptions, divergent worldviews and regional assessments, and a deep deficit of trust. From an Israeli perspective, the U.S. administration has

The Middle East state system is under relentless pressure, and preserving it will require a long-term vision for shoring up U.S. allies, rolling back ISIL, and countering the Iranians.

Although the Obama administration is right to be concerned about Egypt's domestic political trajectory, conditioning the bilateral strategic relationship on Cairo's progress toward democracy will only make matters worse under the current circumstances.

The latest provocation reinforces the need for any nuclear agreement with Iran to include strong enforcement mechanisms and swift and severe penalties for cheating.

Obama needs to show that he's willing to shift the Middle East balance of power against Iran.

To ensure a successful summit with GCC leaders, the administration needs to make clear that its one-sided, 'transformational' approach to Cuba will not be repeated with the Iran nuclear deal.