The Trump administration’s plan for an “Arab NATO,” aimed at countering Iran’s influence, poses serious risks for the region.
U.S. political commitment and leadership are essential to establishing inclusive, stable governance in eastern Syria.
Uprisings from Tunis to Cairo promised to end autocracies and bring democratic reforms. Those early hopes for a fundamental shift in Middle Eastern politics appear to have been misplaced.
The troubles of the Turkish lira have deep roots. Turkey’s president has driven the economy into a narrow, dead-end alley.
By releasing military aid before Egypt fully meets the United States’ conditions, the Trump administration is inviting the Egyptian government to backslide.
The government and civil society have been productive collaborators during previous phases of the Tunisian transition, but today, a climate of fear and a growing trust gap are getting in the way of their cooperation.
China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil, and arguably its most important political relationship. What do Trump’s statements mean for China’s relationship with Iran, and the greater Middle East?
Erdogan’s new partner in parliament—the ultranationalist MHP—will make Ankara a more belligerent and intransigent ally.
With his reelection as president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become Turkey’s most powerful leader since World War II. However, two key considerations will constrain how Erdogan uses his prerogatives.
While New Delhi has begun to build on the synergies with the United Arab Emirates on counter-terrorism and long-term strategic economic cooperation, it has barely scratched the surface of what is possible in the domain of defense.
For the citizens of Turkey, the upcoming elections boil down to a choice between a one-man-rule system with no checks and balances and a possible return to a more liberal and parliamentary system of governance.
Without a firm constitutional basis, early elections in Libya would not only produce a government whose legitimacy is contested even more widely, but also leave the door open for another strongman to rise to power.
The negative consequences of pulling out of the JCPOA could be diminished by aligning the goals announced by the Trump administration into an operational, strategic agenda.
While Iran’s positive political transformation may be a worthy goal, the Trump administration’s reckless execution of this strategy could serve to resuscitate an ailing regime.
Europe remains at fault for both failing to rebuild Libya following its 2011 intervention, and for increasingly relying on rights-abusing militias for its coast guard and migrant interdiction responsibilities.
The Trump administration does not have a plan to get Iran to do anything the United States wants. Pompeo’s new strategy to counter Iran’s behavior across the Middle East is just a long wish list of demands.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal appears to have put regime change at the very center of the new American power play against Tehran.
U.S. President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal should propel Europeans to stand their ground and mark the beginning of a more independent role for Europe in the world.
The United States will be worse off from leaving the Iran deal. Either Iran will succeed in exploiting a wedge between America and its allies, leaving Washington isolated and unable to lead a coalition to address other provocations, or Iran will return to an unconstrained nuclear program.
U.S President Donald Trump may have Israel and Saudi Arabia on his side. But without a hint of any strategic contingency planning by the White House, it would appear that the United States can expect to pay for the Iran decision in spades—from western Europe to the Pacific.