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.
Now that the Trump administration has left the JCPOA, EU governments are looking to Washington to set out how they intend to build a negotiated solution to shared concerns.
Algeria’s regime has repeatedly adapted the political system in limited ways. But what has worked for the regime up until now may not work indefinitely into the future.
The Trump administration appears committed to working "by-with-through" local partners in the Middle East. Doing so effectively requires a clear political strategy and continued diplomatic engagement in the region.
What Trump might decide on the Iran Deal and what happens after.
Muqtada al-Sadr, a prominent Shia cleric, may shed light on the country's future with his next steps.
Scrapping the Iran nuclear deal could further empower undemocratic forces in Tehran and lead to increased destabilization of the Middle East.
Despite a warm relationship between the two leaders, President Trump’s threats to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal risk creating complications for President Macron.
French President Emmanuel Macron sees his visit to Washington, DC as a chance for U.S. President Donald Trump to address some of his concerns with the existing Iran nuclear deal while still saving the deal itself.
While the proxy war in Syria does hold the potential for a clash between U.S. and Russian forces, it is only one of several theaters in which a larger conflict between the two countries is playing out.
The Salafi Community has established a strong presence in state institutions while also expanding its transnational linkages.
The One World of Pax Americana that has existed since the end of the Cold War is already history. US global dominance is still in place, but the peace has been shattered again. The new era is not a replay of the 20th century contest. It may be equally dangerous, but in its own way.
Syrian refugees want a free, just, and accountable system of governance in Syria.
Modern U.S. policy in Libya is confronted by shades of gray and a counterterrorism narrative that tends to flatten and obscure complexities.
Distilled to its essence, Tehran’s steadfast support for Assad is not driven by the geopolitical or financial interests of the Iranian nation, nor the religious convictions of the Islamic Republic, but by a visceral hatred for the state of Israel.
As the living conditions for Syrian refugees worsen and the risks of going home mount, the notion of a voluntary return is rapidly losing meaning.
U.S. President Donald Trump has no intentions of getting stuck in Syria’s civil war.
Policymakers need to learn from their military subordinates: They should keep their heads cool and think of the consequences of their actions, both intended and unintended.
While other Palestinian institutions are in crisis, Hamas has maintained its integrity and survived political turmoil. But to capitalize on this, it will need to revise its strategy.