Policy Analysis

The two leaders can use their personal rapport to solve bilateral and regional problems, but they will also face tough challenges in matters such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and dealings with China.

Cutting aid programs is not inherently wrong—but making those cuts before assessing their specific impact on regional allies and American lives could be disastrous for U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Israeli and U.S. experts discuss the agenda for the prime minister’s latest U.S. trip and the regional fallout from President Trump’s highly controversial ideas on “relocating” Gaza’s population.

Weakening Hezbollah permanently will be difficult, but for once the goal is attainable—if Beirut has the courage to keep the group out of Lebanon’s coffers and make the army do its job.

The current set of potential obstacles is much less formidable than what Washington faced just six months ago, and translating possibility into reality begins with the Trump-Netanyahu meeting.

Very close allied coordination will be needed to strike the right balance between pursuing viable nuclear diplomacy and giving Israel the weapons and support it needs to use force against Iran if necessary.

Important strategic changes abound in the region, but policymakers should take care not to underestimate the persistence of old challenges or the potential emergence of new threats.

Since the outbreak of the crisis in Sudan in April 2023 between the country's warring generals, Cairo has faced a dilemma regarding how to approach the war on its southern borders.

Lebanon’s election of Army Chief Joseph Aoun after two years of stagnation and political paralysis heralds the potential for a new and better future for the country.

Since the fall of the Assad regime, Baghdad has provided shelter and material support to members of two U.S.-designated Afghan and Pakistani groups run by the Iranian military.

Rather than choosing between diplomacy and military action, the Trump administration should think of these options as mutually supportive, sequencing its actions in hopes of achieving the best and least costly outcome.

Rather than using the months since the passage of new laws as an opportunity to agree on a more gradual implementation plan and identify alternatives to the controversial relief agency, the parties have simply dug in their heels.

The agreement’s implementation phase is going surprisingly well and has been extended, but maintaining the ceasefire will require officials to resolve the issues in dispute and address Hezbollah’s threats.

Efforts to develop Kurdish unity in Syria come at a complex point in discussions about the SDF's future role in a new Syria.

The Houthis have shown little willingness or ability to accurately distinguish between the ships they target, leaving Washington and its partners with no choice but to doubt the group’s supposed “ceasefire” and keep up the pressure.

All the talk of Hamas emerging from the war with the upper hand contradicts the realities on the ground, where the group has lost its military capabilities, has no hope of substantial outside help, and has failed to ignite the West Bank.

U.S.-designated terrorist Akram Kaabi is projecting a sense of impunity and demonstrating little fear of the United States or its leader.

A negotiated settlement is inevitable, but if Putin goes into those talks with all the leverage, the outcome will only lay the foundation for even deadlier conflicts in the future.

The ceasefire is already shaking up Israel’s politics and high command; prompt, well-coordinated action with Washington could help counter threats on several external fronts as well.

Whatever the new administration decides on major regional issues—from Gulf involvement in postwar Gaza to next steps on Iran—local leaders should be prepared to wait awhile and brace for surprises.