Policy Analysis

Hizballah's response to military action against Iran could be shaped by rational cost-benefit analysis, a perceived spiritual obligation to defend its Shiite patron in Tehran, or both.

The recent ordeal of American democracy workers in Egypt was not so much about them as about Cairo's own internal power struggle.

Turkey's Syria policy seems to be mirroring its Libya strategy: speaking out against a tyrant, gathering international support for political action against him, but staying in the background when it comes to military action.

By weakening the Islamic Republic's institutions and strengthening his own authority, Ayatollah Khamenei may make himself more vulnerable in a time of crisis.

Providing arms and other materiel to the FSA stands a far better chance of success than waiting for a silver bullet.

The Iranian regime will not be able to survive existing sanctions, which are targeting the banking system and oil industry like never before.

As the confrontation with Iran enters a new, more dangerous phase, Washington must avoid the temptation of redefining its red lines in a manner that endangers national security.

Barring unexpected developments, even optimistic observers see the current Israeli-Palestinian deadlock persisting at least until after this year's U.S. elections. The key actors are too focused on other challenges, too skeptical of each other's intentions, and too limited by multiple constraints to engage in the kind of decisionmaking a peace

Although the president's AIPAC speech offered reassurances that he is committed to the full logic of a "prevention" strategy in dealing with the Iranian nuclear challenge, including potential military action, it also implied a clear preference for Israel to hold back and let the noose of international sanctions tighten.

Washington and Israel need to address their public messaging on Iran, which has undermined mutual trust and efforts to achieve their common objective: a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis.

The sooner the international community helps end the killing in Syria, the more likely it will be able to prevent radicalization of the country's population along sectarian lines.

For reasons of morality, and in the interest of containing the violence in Syria, the international community must accelerate Assad's departure.

The regional impact of Bashar al-Asad's eventual fate may be at least as important for American interests as the direct effects inside Syria.

Iran's upcoming parliamentary elections, while vigorously contested, offer no hope for improving U.S.-Iranian relations.

For the moment, at least, the notion that Turkey will become a full EU member state is no longer true.

The movement is facing its most serious rift ever, severely divided on its future course and the identity of its post-Syria sponsors.

In this new study, Jason Pack and Barak Barfi explain why the United States must take a proactive stance in ensuring that Libyan authorities win the peace, not just the war.

Although some examples suggest rational decisionmaking by Tehran, other Iranian actions seem unencumbered by cost-benefit considerations.

The Iranian nuclear threat will challenge Obama and Netanyahu's sometimes-rocky relationship like never before.

Indirect intervention in Syria is less sure to succeed than direct intervention, but it may be more doable, giving the people the time and help they need to liberate themselves.