Policy Analysis

Tehran's longstanding arms trafficking and missile research efforts highlight the problem with wholesale removal of weapons restrictions.

The following item appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Washington Post on July 21 . As a critic of many administration decisions on Iran, I have sympathy for Eric Edelman's and Ray Takeyh's problems with the Iran deal but disagree with their suggested response: Congress kills

The Lebanese terrorist group continues to operate in Europe despite warnings from the EU.

The final agreement lies somewhere in between the April 2 interim parameters and Khamenei's maximalist demands, but whether Iran will adhere to the seemingly favorable terms is another question.

Congressional rejection of the nuclear deal wouldn't be pretty, but a messy domestic political battle is a far cry from the president's warnings of potential war with Iran.

July 16, 2015 When terrorists assassinated Prosecutor-General Hisham Barakat, this successful, high profile attack demonstrated that Egyptian terrorist activity could begin favoring political assassinations in densely populated cities. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has acknowledged this threat and increased security in Egypt, which helped Egyptian forces successfully defeat the recent terrorist

The Supreme Leader's initial reaction has sent discouraging signals about Iran's willingness to comply with its commitments in the long term.

Knowing when Iran has violated the agreement is one thing; ensuring that there is a price for every transgression, no matter how small, is another.

If the administration cannot convincingly describe a regional strategy into which the agreement fits, allies and skeptics are likely to assume an unspoken U.S. realignment or simple incoherence.

Nothing, including reluctantly accepting a bad agreement, is as dangerous as leaving open the question of how the United States would react if Iran approaches a nuclear weapons capability.

The agreement is a significant achievement for Rouhani, but the hardliners are already moving to ensure that it does not empower him during his remaining time in office, in line with their previous efforts to downplay the negotiations and separate them from nonnuclear issues.

The deal with Iran is finally done. Given the stakes, it should be scrutinized. It makes sense to reserve judgment and see how the administration explains all the clauses of the agreement and how they will be implemented. While I look forward to the administration's full explanation of the deal

Complacency could put regional security at greater risk, so the international community must not drop its guard against an emboldened regime.

Even with a deal now signed, the Obama administration still has many tools for countering Iran’s menacing behavior across the Middle East.

Tactically, the impressively detailed Iran nuclear accord masks major flaws; strategically, it heralds a profound shift in U.S. regional strategy.

The government can move past the recent terrorist attacks and other struggles, but not if it falls back on arbitrary arrests, opaque investigations, or other tactics that failed during the Ben Ali era.

The additional resources unleashed by the agreement will put Iran in a better position to spend more on its various priorities, but how much it puts toward foreign adventurism will remain a political, not an economic, decision.

The additional steps promised at the Camp David summit do not constitute a game-changer in U.S.-GCC relations, especially since the Joint Statement is so vague regarding specific steps to counter Iran's destabilizing activities.

Iraq's army can make a comeback with a well-chosen chief of staff and a focus on leadership, discipline, and training.

As another negotiating deadline comes and goes, U.S. allies in the Middle East appear less concerned with the particulars of a possible accord than the particulars of U.S. policy toward Iran after a deal. The Obama administration believes that Iran’s behavior in the region will improve after a nuclear agreement